User talk:PeeJay/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:PeeJay. 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. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Removed
Why did you removed the fantasy flag for the Cristiano Ronaldo article. I just want to know. The page was loading to slow?--Ionutzmovie (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Ok sorry. I was taking the Ideea from the romanian Wikipedia. Better to know.--Ionutzmovie (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Tony Hawksworth (footballer)
|
On October 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tony Hawksworth (footballer), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
2009–10 UEFA Champions League group stage
You reverted my edit about the attendance of the Group G Stuttgart vs. Rangers. You noted that was in accordance to the UEFA. I dont know which exact source you use there, but the arena had a complete stand demolished before this season to build a new one. Therefore even in domestic games the maximum capacity is below 45,000. The official page [1] of the VfB Stuttgart reports 39,000 for the match in question. Which is the maximum capacity VfB announced for international games during the rebuild. You can even watch the webcam showing the missing stand [2] Personally i see the difference every matchday as i own a season ticket ;) Pleas recheck and correct the number again. Airbag - 78.51.182.219 (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Your name in a Soccernet article
Congrats! This table was online for three minutes, then PeeJay2K3 (a Manchester United supporter who lives in Wales) came to the rescue and restored Chandler's version. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Football vandal
Hi there PJ, VASCO here,
A serious situation has arisen!! I found out about this vandal, User:Marvingroves, while browsing some footballers, and addressed this situation to you and a couple other more members of "The Force", to see what we can do. I took some time to browse through his edits (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Marvingroves) and, after seeing he edits solely on soccer, i knew whom i had to address. I am not going to report it to WP:AIV to obtain the same old answers: "User must have been warned several times", "User must be active this moment", etc. Furthermore, after nearly three weeks of vandalizing, he has not received yet one warning - another thing AIV strongly puts its finger on for accurate reports.
And what does this "user" do, you ask? I'll tell you, with three good examples: in José Manuel Pinto and Albert Jorquera, he stated that both players were Spanish internationals, when they are NOT!! In Santiago Ezquerro, he felt generous, and inserted +100 (!!!) goals for the player at Athletic Bilbao. I do not need to see more edits of him to know it is a vandal (vandalism is not only rubbish words, death threats and akin, this is also i believe).
Any suggestions mate? Ty very much in advance. From Portugal,
VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
World Cup Statistics
Why is it that everytime I try and add something insightful and useful to an article you decide to remove it and leave the corporate bullshit in? Not even a little note saying 'I'm going to remove your link' - cheers pal. Football nut (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Euro 1984
I have been working on UEFA Euro 1984 qualifying articles along with User:Markh991. We have created articles for each of the qualifying groups and generally cleaned up the main page. I have also added a complete list of goalscorers to the main article. Can you check if I have made any mistakes or missed anything out. 03md 14:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Lajos Jakovetic
Hi PeeJay. Listen, I see you removed the category:Foot. managers from the Lajoš Jakovetić page. I supose that you did it because I have only put that he was the manager of Spartak Subotica on one season, the one they get to lay the Cup final. Since it was only one season (shown on his page) that he was the manager, I supose you removed it thinking it was not worth it. The problem is that I have only written that season in the infobox because those are the only years I´m sure he was coaching that club, but he was coach many more years there, it´s just that I don´t know from what year until what year, so I only wrote the years I knew for sure. He did coached there for long time so I restored the category:Football managers. It was not an occasional year. I´ll try to find more info about him, but is not easy, since it was a long time ago. But he certainly deserves the category. We´ll be in touch. Regards. FkpCascais (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, thanx for letting me know that. I thouth that the categories Football goalkeepers, defenders, midfielders, forwards and managers was suposed to be used... I was adding it to some pages I´ve done... So, it should only be used in cases when there is no nationality? For much time that I spend here, there is allways something I didn´t knew. Thanx. What about the case I have with the doubt about the years he spended coaching? Is it better to put the years I´m certain that he was in the club, even by that perhaps giving the wrong impression he only spended that season coaching, or leave the years in white, since I don´t know the first, neither the last year? FkpCascais (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Round Two/Playoff Source
European Zone - Competition Format
Refers to Round One/Round Two. I believe that this is what all the round name changes were based on (eg AFC Playoff or AFC Fifth Round) - there was a stage where someone went through and made them all consistent.
Personally I don't care - but the original moved is justified on the basis that it matches the other confederations and the original FIFA documents. Obviously they get referred to as play-offs a lot of the time (because that's what they are), but that doesn't mean that is what their official name is.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
MLS templates
Thanks for the link to the template discussion. In the future, how about tossing that kind of information into your edit summaries when you make the initial change? That way other editors can be assured that you haven't just embarked on some kind of mission of personal preference. (Thanks for your efforts, by the way.) JohnInDC (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The Cliff
Hi PeeJay,
I've uploaded some article scans about the Cliff to my Flickr account [1] (which also has lots of other stuff you might be interested in). You might want to add some of the info to the article, or you might not - just thought I'd make you aware of it.Decorativeedison (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Champions League Final's Photo
Hey Thomas, I've seen at the peer review of the article that this photo could be deleted and I should upload it on en.wiki. For me there is no problem, I can do it, just tell me the license I have to use. I can also improve it, now it's a little bit oblique...--Andrea 93 (msg) 07:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, anyway let me know if you will need it for any reason.--Andrea 93 (msg) 13:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Whitespace changes
Hi,
I don't think there's much point in us undoing each other's whitespace changes. Most infoboxes use the "pad before the equals sign" layout; I'd rather that this wasn't arbitrarily changed on already deployed templates if that's okay. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Air New Zealand Cup Logo
Hi. You've removed the fair use rationale for the Air NZ Cup logo from 2009 Air New Zealand Cup and then the image itself from the article. Your edit summaries did not explain why ("Doesn't count" and "it is NOT fair use to use that logo here"), and you have not made any entries on either talk page. I understand that on a first pass. However, when your actions were reverted by people with less experience than you - surely it's worth throwing at least a link or couple of sentences that make it clear why the images cannot be used as they were? I've restored them, after spending a couple of hours researching for a reason you're right. Can you either tell me I'm right, or show me how I'm wrong? Thanks.AshleyMorton (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
UEFA Euro 2004 knockout-stage
Hey peejay2k3 could u do me a favour and do the line ups for Sweden v Netherlands and Czech Republic v Denmark & the two semi-finals of the same tournament. It's actually good when you do the line-ups and the coloured shirts in which the team were wearing. Thank you. --82.47.2.163 (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Image use: Francois Pienaar
I got the impression before that you know a thing or two about fair use and copyright of pictures used in wikipedia. The article Francois Pienaar needs a picture. Any guidelines what I should be looking for? Haven't added pictures before. Can't find any pictures that are specifically marked as free use, but there are many that are not marked at all - not sure how to interpret them? - Sahmejil (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Kirovski's infobox
You really don't think spacing the text out on one line per entry is easier than having it all scrunched together like that? It's really difficult to see which stat you're supposed to be changing with that layout. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Piqué
Look at the official site before reverting. Piqué is 1.92
http://www.fcbarcelona.com/web/english/futbol/temporada_09-10/plantilla/jugadors/pique.html
- This is not to discuss about 1 cm. This is the right place. And the right is 1.92. Will at least once you can admit that not right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Picolotto (talk • contribs) 23:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Gerard Piqué
Hi there PJ, VASCO here, hope all's fine with you,
User:Picolotto asked me, politely, to please urge you not to revert Gerard Piqué's height to 1,91. He has sent you the official team profile where it reads that figure; i've also done some additional net browsing, and the vast majority of the sites read "1,92". Of course, i've never met the guy (PIQUÉ), so i'm not going to take on a "holier-than-thou attitude" and say he measures 1,92 or 1.
What are your sources/views on this? Think you can accommodate PICOLOTTO? Of course, i am not going to revert either of you man, i am just conveying what the other user told me to tell you. Once/if you respond, i'll do the same in the opposite direction...
Cheers, have a nice week,
VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
While I'm not sure I object to the prod itself, the concern listed is "List with no discernible inclusion criteria". Surely the criteria are clear; all former players. Nfitz (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Any standards?
Why did you delete my contributions on October 20th about matchday scenarios, when you are contributing to build them up now?
Which are your standards?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009%E2%80%9310_UEFA_Champions_League_group_stage&diff=321092827&oldid=321091602
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009%E2%80%9310_UEFA_Champions_League_group_stage&diff=323869473&oldid=323853436 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.27.46 (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
St James' Park
Hi PeeJay,
Not sure if you have seen that St James' Park has been renamed the "Sportsdirect.com @ St James' Park Stadium" (no, it's not a joke), and the page was recently moved to reflect this. I disagree with this move, as per WP:COMMONNAME - I really don't see this full name being used in favour of St James' Park by the various media outlets. Just wondering what your thoughts are...? Nouse4aname (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Nevermind, it's been dealt with... Nouse4aname (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Dutch names
Re your ANI thread, it may be worth seeking the views of WikiProject Netherlands members on this. Mjroots (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking at this in more detail and I'd be interested in your views.--Pondle (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Help
Hey man. Can you help me with something, the table where all the Premier League matches are summarised is wrongly formatted in Manchester United F.C. season 2008–09. I've had a quick try at a fix but couldn't get it tidy. Ta RednessInside (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Nourrir la Chèvre
Re your edit summary at [2], I could spend a lot of time explaining just how wrong you are, were it not for the fact that it would be the very type of forumesque thread that ought to be avoided ;) Robinho or Goater? No contest, the Goat every time. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
How I Met Your Mother
Little Minnesota. I notice you readded content to an article about How I Met Your Mother. That's great, there's loads of content other editors have deleted that can be found by searching the history. Unfortunately those same editors will delete it again and probably claim it is Trivia rather than Production information, so it is very important to at least put things in appropriate categories and if you can come up with a citation or reference to the DVD commentary it would really help prevent at least some of the trigger happy deletionists from removing it again. (Reply here if necessary.) -- Horkana (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Civility
I must apologize to all of the editors, especially DitzyNizzy, who made that incorrect-year-contribution, for my inappropiate language despite I am making a constructive work. I was too agitated when I saw a year which is one year later and writing a foul language at the summary. I would address the issue and make an apologize at the talk page of the article and DitzyNizzy's user talk page. Apologize again. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 16:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Canvassing
Apologies, I probably did realise that was against the rules, but wasn't really minding my words. I've altered my comment to neutralise it, and hopefully prevent it from being canvassing. Feel free to remove it altogether if you're not happy with my comments. Harrias (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Valencia CF.png
Thanks for uploading File:Valencia CF.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Matt Busby
What's the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.8.113 (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
"The issue is that we have no source for your assertion that Busby's heroes were Hughie Gallacher and Alex James. I've seen nothing about either of those two fellows in my books about Busby, except to say that they were also from Bellshill. Furthermore, all three men were born in the same decade, so to say that the two former were Busby's boyhood heroes is a bit of a stretch. – PeeJay 08:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)"
Would it not have been more constructive to leave a comment on the page concerned instead of so zealously changing the edits back? I have added a reference. Feel free to check it in your reading material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.8.113 (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
"that huge quote is unnecessary, especially as it only proves that Busby looked up to a couple of older boys from his village"
The quote was added in direct response to your comment above that dismissed Busby's boyhood admiration of the individiuals in question. An online reference was provided that cite the information as coming from Busby's 1973 autobiography.
Again instead of so zealously reverting out the quote, would it not be more constructive to have a better attempt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.8.113 (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Once again the changed reverted out with no indication of a willingness to work with others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.163.1 (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The comment above applies once again, reverting out edits with no attempt to team work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.8.113 (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, reverts of the same change again, still not interested in working with someone to try to improve things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.8.113 (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Jim Lawlor
I have nominated Jim Lawlor, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Lawlor. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ClubOranjeT 10:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Martin Ferguson (football scout)
I have nominated Martin Ferguson (football scout), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Ferguson (football scout). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ClubOranjeT 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Invitation to join Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron
I notice that a lot of your contributions have unfortunately been put up for deletion, I can relate. You may be interested in a wonderful group of editors who rescue articles by adding references and making articles more encyclopedic.
|
Football club names
Hi. I noticed that you undid my editing of Wolverhampton Wanderers, West Bromwich Albion and Queens Park Rangers. While I appreciate that we should use the full names wherever possible, if you view the articles in question you will clearly see that such long names wreck the appearance of the match score. I think the shortened versions are okay, and since they are linked to the article on the club, there shouldn't really be any confusion. Do you agree?
RednessInside (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah.....that's better, sorry man! RednessInside (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Darren Ferguson
Please stop reverting clearly referenced additions to the above article. I will revert the article with even more references, including the 'Daily Mail' in the next short while. It is a clearly referenced fact that Ferguson is being linked to the Reading job. Mycroft (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I apologise for the tone of the above message, it can just be frustrating when stuck in a bit of a 'revert war' Mycroft (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The translator strikes again
Hi there PEEJAY, VASCO here, hope all's fine with you,
Once again, as the title says, i merely convey the request of User:Picolotto, nothing else. He says that, no matter what name is written on his jersey, Sergio Busquets is widely known by his last name, not his first.
In my humble opinion, i also think it is that way, as in many televised matches i have seen, the player is referred to as BUSQUETS, not SERGIO. However, if he has expressed the desire to be addressed to as SERGIO (Picolotto did not tell me anything of the sorts), i'll just shut "my bloody mouth" :) and end of discussion...
Well, that's all for the moment, message delivered. Wishing you a brilliant 2010 and a happy XMAS (in no necessary order!!),
VASCO, Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Parentheses in Match Results
You seem to have taken it upon yourself to revert many of the various edits I have been making to FIFA World Cup articles in the recent weeks. And while we are working out one of our disagreements on the talk page of WP:Football, this topic is to discuss the use of parentheses surrounding "Report" in the footballbox and footballbox_collapsible templates.
I have tried to make the point throughout my edits that I have been following the same general format that I have found in other football match results, and inasmuch I have been acting in good faith. Additionally, you seem to have been making the argument that the style I was looking at was unfounded and needed to be corrected. Accordingly, I have given you several sources as to where else within Wikipedia I have found examples of the style I have been trying to emulate. These are by and large articles that you have worked on in the past and seem to have found no complaints about until such time as I made their particular style known to you. Additionally, I have tried to find examples of the style towards which you have directed me, and so far I have been unable to locate any, or any generally-established community policy that would lend credence to your arguments.
Finally, though, and with particular respect to the footballbox template, I have delved into the template's edit history, and I have discovered that contrary to your claim in an edit note, that the non-use of parentheses in match results has been standard practice for "several years" now, the reverse has actually been true throughout the history of the template, since the inclusion of the "report" parameter. Furthermore, I discovered that such use was supported by your edits (and lack of documentation on the talk page for policy reversal) as late as 30 October of this current year, which additionally postdates my first edit to the template's documentation page.
Therefore, the only conclusion that I can come to regarding your edits on this particular topic are that they are essentially disruptive in nature, and not conductive to the operation of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Accordingly, I would ask that you please cease your edits to the end of the topic immediately until such time as you and I can resolve our differences regarding this issue. As for myself, I will similarly cease my edits on this topic until a resolution can be decided, with the exception of undoing your recent edits to eliminate the proof of my position on the matter. Again, I hope that we can come to swift and civil resolution of this matter between ourselves as editors, however, if you prove this to be impossible, I will not hesitate to take this matter of your disruptive editing to the formal dispute resolution process.
Otherwise, I hope again that we can come to an amicable solution here, and I hope to hear your position soon. cassius1213 03:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize if the thrust of my previous argument was unclear. I do understand that the template documentation is a reflection of the generally-accepted usage of the template in articles; in my previous argument, I was merely citing the state of that same documentation as proof that there was a previously-established standard which you seem to have changed recently out of whim. In my opinion, the belief that a single editor believes that the particular punctuation in question is superfluous is insufficient to change the status quo of years of established usage. Additionally, though, I did look at the recent editions of the articles that you mentioned in your post to me, and indeed for the past season in most cases and the past two to three seasons in a few others, the use of parentheses around the "report" link to the match report seems to have ended. However, once you delve past the recent few seasons in each of those competitions, the established punctuation standard is to include those parentheses. Thus, the overarching question in my mind is whether to continue the use of an established standard that represents the overwhelming majority of relevent articles, or to instead change to a new arbitrary standard for which the arguments in favor are not particularly inspiring. Accordingly, in my opinion it would be simpler, easier, and more in line with established practice to edit the articles that you have mentioned to include the particular parenthesesen. Finally, as to the quite separate issue of whether or not to include red cards in match results, it seemed to me to be a substantial question that had not been specifically dealt with by the community at-large, and that is why I posited it to them as a seperate question. In any case, though, thank you for the apology as to your methods in the past, and I would like to similarly apologize if my methods have come of as belligerent as well. I hope that we can continue to work through these issues together and collaboratively. cassius1213 08:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to thank you for raising some excellent points and for putting the onus of the argument back onto me. As for my reason in favor of including the parentheses in question, it is simple and singular: the additional punctuation, while it may seem unncessary and superfluous to some people, in my opinion helps to increase the readability of the information. The parentheses help to render the "report" link as a distinctive piece of information, and help to keep it from being glossed over by the passing eye. In effect, the parentheses act as a form of typographical blocking, similarly to the Guildford Rules for road signs in Britain (but in this case substituting typographical elements for contrasting colors). Removing the parentheses, in my opinion, reduces the readibility of the link by giving the eye one fewer piece of design information with which to "latch upon". Again, though, all of this is only my opinion, and if you don't agree, perhaps we should pose this as another community discussion, since neither one of us seems to be able to locate the original discussion regarding it. cassius1213 09:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi - do you intend to make this article live? Some of the player names need tweaking and it needs referencing, but otherwise it looks good to go. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Be constructive
Mate, you've already recognized 2009 UEFA Champions League Final as a pattern to be followed... I see no flags for the Man of the match in the box, not even those large ones before line-ups. So, why do you keep contradicting yourself? Quit this nonsense and be constructive. 189.24.146.199 (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wow. I surely could see that tone coming... Listen, boy, what makes you think that you do know what "policy" and "vandalism" are, and I don't? Drop this arrogant snob hot shitter act and go grow some pubic hair. Then you come back and try to have a reasonable conversation if you are really interested. Until then, go get some sleep and some rest so that you can cool off. It's late in England. 189.24.146.199 (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi PeeJay, I undid your Jan. 2 edit to Template:Infobox boxing match because it caused every page that transcluded the template to show {{{fight name}}} instead of the fight's name. I don't know anything about template coding, so if you want to correct whatever capitalization issue it was that bothered you I have no suggestions, but this wasn't it. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Football Association Charity Shield
Cheers ! you know it makes sense !! If only out of historical curiosity !!! As an armchair (though one time active late '70's- early '80's) Rams supporter, one has heard various excuses for their declining the invitation to compete for said silverware in '72. Alas, such gossip can not be 'cited'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ROBERT TAGGART (talk • contribs) 23:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Phil Hughes
Not being funny, but those question marks that you keep adding to the years column of the infobox look ridiculous. I've never seen anything like it anyway -- BigDom 10:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree about the X's but suppose I just disagree about it looking like you've forgotten if you leave it blank (that's what I've always done). Just have to agree to disagree I guess. -- BigDom 10:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Bank Street
Hi PeeJay, is it possible for you to change the map on the Bank Street (stadium) article? I have a far better map of the ground C1909 here [3], but do not have a clue about how to add it with all the relevant "fair use" guff so that it is not deleted. I hope you agree that this version of the map adds to that article. Decorativeedison (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- The map was obtained from someone in the Land Registry and he assures me that it is in the public domain as it dates from 1909. The reason that it is uploaded as "all rights reserved" is simply because I upload all my stuff to Flickr in the same way and I have a very sketchy understanding of copyright law and didn't realise that it could be changed anyway. Feel free to download the file and upload it yourself here (as, like I say, I'm not sure I'd do it properly).
- Also, do you have any thoughts on the 1960s club badge I added to the Manchester United article yesterday? Decorativeedison (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about uploading the badge over the old one, but that old one is nothing but a photoshopped version of the 1992-97 badge design and I did not know how to upload it any other way. No part of it dates from prior to 1992, whereas this one is actually from the period in question. As for the Bank St map, it is from the Land Registry's system but it is nothing more than a scanned ordinance survey map from C1909. It is definately a PD image.
- Also, I know the Definative Newton Heath makes reference to the ground as Bank Lane, but I'm sure that is a mistake as no other books mention it by this name. Your theory that the street itself used to be known as Bank Lane is disproven by earlier maps that I have seen. It was always called Bank Street. Decorativeedison (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have been given a map of the North Road area but it is exactly the same as the one that is already in that article. I have been told that it is the only map that shows the football ground boundary that is available. Have you seen the photos on my Flickr account that I took at the site in November? Feel free to use any of those if you think they add anything to the article. Decorativeedison (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: Cats
Sounds good. More effort than I would be willing to put in. Think I wanted to do something like that three years ago, but never got around to it. Pats1 T/C 00:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ha, I'm not your boss. No problem... Pats1 T/C 01:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's good work. Thanks for doing it. Pats1 T/C 01:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
In this article which you created, it states that Owen scored a hat-trick against Ireland on 8 April 1893, as supported by the reference to the Welsh Football Data Archive. In the User:PeeJay2K3/Wales national football team results article, you show that he only scored twice, with Billy Owen scoring the other, which ties up to most other sources. I guess the George Owen article will need amending to reflect this with a note on the talk page explaining the discrepancy. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't care if he's fighting against consensus, you are edit warring as well. If there is truly consensus against the image, someone else should be able to remove it as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Manchester United F.C. season 1999-2000
Hi mate. It is listed on the MCG website. See this link and click on Soccer: http://www.mcg.org.au/History/Attendances/Records.aspx Jhantor (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion and a vote going on you might be interensted inBigmaninthebox (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Match reports
Hi man, it was me adding match reports to 06-07 season, just forgot to sign in! Where did you find the 4th round FA Cup one? Good work!
RednessInside (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah rite nice one, I was searching for United 2 Portsmouth 1, then going to the relevant date, there were match build up articles and reaction articles either side of the date but no report, cheers for finding it
RednessInside (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah that's probably it, the night we lost to Copenhagen was under FCK 1 United 0, but that came up pretty easily, never mind
Alan Davies
Hi, while I was looking him up to add to the List of Wales international footballers I noticed that you changed his international caps from 13 to 11 back in December 2008. All the sources I have been able to find have him down as winning 13 caps during his career. Would you mind me asking what source you were using for him? Thanks. Kosack (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello PeeJay2K3! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 688 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
- Domenico Messina - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- James Thomson (footballer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Cowboys fans
What are you gonna do with these guys? Apparently Brooking's $6 million contract to stop those touchdowns doesn't cover anything inside the two-minute warning. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As requested, I've restored File:Clubwc08logo.gif. Please be sure to add the necessary information to the image's page. The appropriate templates are {{Information}} and {{Logo fur}}. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Battle of Old Trafford
Hi mate, Thanks for handling the Battle of Old Trafford (2003) good article review. 03md 01:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Paynter
With this edit to Eddie Paynter you added "family = [[David Paynter|DE Paynter]] (great-grandson)". The problem with that is that David Paynter links to a deleted article about a painter, born in Sri Lanka who lived from 1900-1975! So I have removed it!
But here is the interesting bit - I have received the following in an e-mail:
I 'googled' Eddie Paynter, the cricketer and found a Wikipedia page on him and it looks as though it was submitted by his Grandson. I clicked on the grandson's name and it looks as though you deleted the information on the grandson. I wonder if you know a contact for him. From the webpage Eddie died in 1979 age 77. The reason I would like to contact him is that I understand that Eddie was in an aircraft which came down off the straits of Gibralter near the end of the war. There were only a few on board and were all in the RAF. My father was in that aircraft and was the only person killed. I was informed by an Uncle that Eddie went to see my Grandfather to tell him what had happened. I would love to contact his grandson to see if Eddie ever mentioned this to his family and to see if what I had been told was correct. I also have an oil painting of my mother which my father had done by an artist who was in the RAF also stationed on Gib. Eddie's grandson may also have a painting which was then signed. Mine isn't - the artist told my Dad that he would do it when the war was over and the painting had been varnished as they couldn't get varnish in the war.
Can you help? Also, please set up an e-mail address in your preferences and tick "Enable e-mail from other users". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
GA Nom: Battle of Old Trafford (2003)
There are still a few remaining issues from my review, could you look at these (particularly the sourcing in the match summary section) before next week, or I will unfortunately have to fail this article. Regards, Harrias (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Irish Rugby flag
You are receiving this message as you previous participated in a Irish rugby flag related discussion (WP:RUIRLFLAG). There are two ongoing discussions which may interest you here and here GnevinAWB (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for participating. We have pretty much shown in the discussion that OI is not an issue for the Shamrock in the discussion. I'd like to invite you to reconsider your judgement: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments".Gpeilon (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Bob Matthewson
|
|
On January 29, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bob Matthewson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
January 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Beckham. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Forced image sizes
Wikipedia:Image use policy clearly states "do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so". Since the forced sizes you are applying to the images is exactly the same as the default thumbnail size, there is absolutely no reason for you to do so. Please stop. – PeeJay 02:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Xavi's photo in EURO 2008 was cut in the photo about line-up so wide and length were changed. You can see that the photo is quite indistinct in thumbnail size. On the other hand, photos in David Beckham is too huge. You should consider different scrceen: the photos in 800×600 and 1024×768 was more bigger than the paragraphs; for 1280×800 or higher, some photo's is in other paragraphs and will discover the table about the speech in ESPN. I think the wiki 'must' be user friendly. We have to discuss it... Hoising (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Image use policy clearly statees "do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so". Since the forced sizes you are applying to the images is exactly the same as the default thumbnail size, there is absolutely no reason for you to do so. Pleas stop. – PeeJay 02:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Again, the problem is to do with your own personal image preferences. You need to change your settings instead of changing articles. – PeeJay 09:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Season articles
Hey mate, just saw you remove that crap from the current season page. Nice work, is there any way we can protect the article to stop this sort of thing?
RednessInside (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah it's a good point to have at least some material, but some of the recent edits have been bloody awful, just childish and not thought through properly. I suppose we'll just have to keep monitoring it and try and keep it looking good.
"let's use the city names as FIFA define them"
I'm confused as to this edit. The reason given is precisely the opposite to the edit - as FIFA do define the venues as "Tshwane/Pretoria" etc. You can see this at the match list page and the Tshwane/Pretoria page. Jlsa (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Alex Bruce
Hello. Saw your edit summary and was just wondering why? Personally, I tend to put Position1 / Position2, looks tidy enough and doesn't add yet another line to the infobox; appears that the original infobox at Alex Bruce had that format, though spaces round the slash would have looked neater. Not keen on the Position1 comma Position2 style myself, but I know of no MoS requirement for separate lines. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: 2009 UEFA Champions League Final
Hey PeeJay, what's up? You're welcome for the review, just doing my job as a reviewer, you know. Um, I believe some concerns would be raised, but I do believe it would pass. Just to be on the safe side, why don't you ask someone to copy-edit the article, [again] to be on the safe side. Trust me, if there's a couple of sentences in the article that, to them, don't make sense, they'll call you out for it, and ask that you get someone to copy-edit the article. I'm also telling you this by experience. Just, look over the GA review, and be sure what I brought up won't be a problem in the FAC. Well, I'm rooting for the Saints to win the Super Bowl. You brought it up. In reality, I'm a fan of both the 49ers and Patriots. A Welsh likes American football? Vikings? Because of Brett Favre? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw that, before I signed up to review the article. Also, I wasn't gonna suggest you open another PR, what for, right? The article is well-written, just ask a user, one who isn't experienced in the sport, trust me that works, and you'll be set. If the DVD is out, just use the {{cite video}} template as a source. I've used it, along with {{cite episode}}. I know what you were trying to say. :) Yeah, that victory was pretty sweet. I personally am not a fan of Brett Favre. I have Madden '09. I was gonna root for the Colts, if the Vikings would have won... but they didn't. Yeah, New Orleans definitely deserves this. I hope the article gets promoted, it's definitely "there". That's an article you should be proud of. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I like the fact that you call a chick "man". ;) Yeah, I totally get what you mean. You don't have to say that you own the article, just that you're very knowledgeable with the topic. :) Yeah, exactly. It's because of us who try to make our info. here understandable and factually correct. I took journalism my freshman year in high school, I was interested in the field, but there was too much baggage attached. I hope you succeed as a journalist. ;) Don't worry about it, I hope the same happens to me. Yes, let's go Saints, and my Niners and Pats will see your Vikings next season. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Last time I checked. :) Yeah, I guess it really doesn't matter. Sometimes, I call my female friends "dude". -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I like the fact that you call a chick "man". ;) Yeah, I totally get what you mean. You don't have to say that you own the article, just that you're very knowledgeable with the topic. :) Yeah, exactly. It's because of us who try to make our info. here understandable and factually correct. I took journalism my freshman year in high school, I was interested in the field, but there was too much baggage attached. I hope you succeed as a journalist. ;) Don't worry about it, I hope the same happens to me. Yes, let's go Saints, and my Niners and Pats will see your Vikings next season. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Redundant categories
Howdy! I refreshed Category:Major League Soccer players and noticed that some of the articles I had removed from the category had returned. When I checked the history on the articles I noticed that you had reverted my removal. Please see WP:DUPCAT. In cases where an article is already a member of a sub-category of a parent category the inclusion of the parent category on the article is redundant. As an example, on David Beckham since the article is already included in Category:Los Angeles Galaxy players and Major League Soccer does not have promotion and relegation, it is redundant to also include the league category. There are rare exceptions to this, such as Ben Dragavon, where a goalkeeper is a member of the MLS goalkeeper pool, but has also made an appearance for a specific team. This obviously does not apply to leagues with promotion and relegation, as it is possible for a player to be a member of a team category and yet not meet the qualifications to be part of the league's category. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Edit warning
I agree the the word are too harsh, but as you were an administrator nominee, I fail to find other words to describe your edit at the 2010 FIFA World Cup article. Can you explain for the edit which you made at 00:02 UTC on 26 January 2010. You said "rv to last good version", which directly against me. Despite the problem of the match numbers is a conflict of cognition, and I made a concession for that, but the words "Based on the October 2009 rankings used for the main draw, South Africa at 86 were the lowest ranked team in the tournament." is absoutely wrong, and you should know that. Did you double check the information before you revert them? It really annoys me as it made me revert two times already. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 17:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Call for consensus/conclusion to current Ireland rugby union team icon
Hello, I am contacting you because you have been an active participant in the recent discussion on icon to be used for Ireland rugby union. I have tried to summarise the many strands and come to a conclusion based on what I perceive the consensus to be in this section - Summary of Ireland Flag discussion and suggested consensus conclusion. To move the issue to a conclusion I am asking all participants who have signed the discussion to read my summary and comment on the validity of the approach I have advocated, before the issue goes cold. I am keen that the enormous efforts of all contributors results in a tangible conclusion on this occasion.Kwib (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Rugby barnstar
|
The Rugby Union Barnstar | |
| For your efforts in finally helping to solve the Irish flag issue . For your willingness to discuss the issues not the editiors and for at all times remaining civil. I hearby award you the Rugby barnstar |
Hyphens in reference titles
We're discussing your edit here. Art LaPella (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Navbox markup
I'm not opposed to eliminating the use of Template:Fb start, et al. However, there are thousands of templates – including only those that have been tagged on their talk pages – included in even thousands more articles that utilize them. I'd be wary of making that move without at least letting more people know so that everyone else ccan start making those edits. What say you? You can reply here, I'm watching you. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see I'm not the only one in favour of phasing out {{fb start}} etc. Anyway, from what I've seen, removing the markup doesn't really make much difference when the {{fb start}} and {{fb end}} tags are in place; it's just a matter of removing them once all the navboxes on a page no longer require them. I've only done navboxes on Man Utd articles so far, but with everyone's help we could phase out {{fb start}} within a couple of weeks. – PeeJay 12:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Using the football box is certainly an unnecessary complication, but eliminating them will be tough. Maybe you should let the footy community know that you'd like to make this move. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- That was actually going to be my next move, but I just wanted to make the changes to the Man Utd ones to show that there wouldn't be any particular problems with the transition, provided that the correct markup was used in the templates. – PeeJay 15:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea. I'll definitely second this change. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- That was actually going to be my next move, but I just wanted to make the changes to the Man Utd ones to show that there wouldn't be any particular problems with the transition, provided that the correct markup was used in the templates. – PeeJay 15:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Using the football box is certainly an unnecessary complication, but eliminating them will be tough. Maybe you should let the footy community know that you'd like to make this move. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:ANAPROF
I have nominated Category:ANAPROF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Liga Panameña de Fútbol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Number of players
Can you tell me why you deleted my speech "if any team have remain 7 players by no remain quota of substitution (include injury, sent-off by redcard, etc), the referee will stop the match to terminate early to lose." please?--Pierce (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Rollback
I'd watch my rollback usage if I were you. Rollback is only intended for blatant vandalism. Strongly disagreeing with edits by IPs is not the same thing. An IP has just brought it up on ANI. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
External links
Hi, I think you might be confusing External links with citations. I don't really understand why you considered[4] this inappropriate. It has several maps and photographs that might be of interest to the reader. I thought that's why wikipedia had External links sections.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi again, I think there are two maps in the article I linked to as against one on wiki, there is a photograph of the velodrome on wiki but I think the BBC pics portray the atmosphere of times past far better than a the velodrome or a plaque. Many other articles have external links I am not sure why you are so opposed to one in this article. I still think the BBC article would interest readers despite your personal objection to the link.--J3Mrs (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Eddie Johnson
Is this link a more reliable source to tell that Johnson was on a trial with Seattle than what Seattle Times has becasue it has the list of players who are new, who are returning from last season, who are rumored to be with the Sounders, who are on trial, and who are gone? I'm pretty sure this link is better. Not really a great link but it pretty much explains a lot more in my opinion. – Michael (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Result of the 3RR complaint
See the result of WP:AN3#User:88.109.169.136 reported by User:PeeJay2K3 (Result: Semi). If you continue to exceed 3RR yourself, you will most likely be blocked. It is better to take any new cases of over-enthusiastic IPs to the noticeboards, and stop doing your own reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
2 batsman playing with the same name
Hi PeeJay,
Going slightly off-topic, I remember Matthew James Wood and Matthew James Wood both opening the batting in a Yorkshire v Somerset match in 2002! —MDCollins (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Piqué
An agreement was made with VascoAmaral to an understanding of the infobox. But this time I will not fall into edit wars with you. Unfortunately you are a difficult person to deal with. If you want to leave it, all right then, not be the first time we have to 'respect' their will, even if there is an agreement.
- They are different cases. Real Madrid and Real Sociedad are known by these names. Now, others are known simply by Zaragoza, Mallorca, Espanyol, Murcia, etc. .. But I repeat, not going into edit wars with you. If you want to leave, you the boss!
ChapecoenseChapecoense 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi there mate, hope all's fine by you. My views on this discussion (stumbled upon this on CHAPECO's page) - and before i start, obviously you are right PEEJAY, an agreement between 2 out of thousands of editors (although i think more than two will agree on my views) is hardly a consensus - are the following:
REAL MADRID and REAL SOCIEDAD are known, 99,99999999% of the times, to "its fullest extent" - i have seen thousands of games with Spanish commentary and/or matchday highlights in same language. The other clubs, REAL BETIS, REAL MURCIA, REAL ZARAGOZA, REAL MALLORCA, etc, etc, well, exactly the opposite, 99%,99999999 of the time they are referred to solely by one name (city, except for BETIS). That is why i told to User:Chapecoense in my conversations, and what i also convey to you now. When i edit, i do it this way, never forgetting my main "tactic", full name in storyline (one time only), box compressed. I hardly see (if that's the case, i have not checked Gerard Piqué's page after this last disagreement and, even if i do, will not edit there) what is the problem of having Real Zaragoza in story and Zaragoza in box, but maybe i am seeing it wrong...
Of course, you can present me with the (logic) reasoning "This is EN.WIKI, not ES.WIKI". Well, my friend, in one of the most seemingly open-and-shut cases of these teams, REAL SOCIEDAD, i have seen English commentators often referring to the club as solely SOCIEDAD, so i imagine the same "treatment" is applied to the other REAL sides, safe the most obvious (and decorated).
Take care, keep up the good work,
VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, was really expecting a reply (negative or positive), but that's OK. Cheers, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Match lineup images
I notice that you are the creator of many of the images used in tournament/cup final articles listed in WP:GA, such as this one used in 2002 UEFA Cup Final. I'm working on making further improvements to 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final and would like to ask for your help in creating a similar image for this cup final article. Can you point me to any tutorials, instructions, or other resources that might help get me started? What tools do you use to create the images? I use GIMP to do most of the image editing I need, but it does not support SVG images. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. --SkotyWATC 05:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer to Inkscape. It turns out this wasn't too tough to do after all with the correct tools. Thanks again. --SkotyWATC 03:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Pressure or pressurize
Personally I believe it is better to use simpler language. Also if you google, say, "pressure the defenders" and compare it to "pressurize the defenders", you will get about four times matches for the former.
Manchester United season
22.02.2010, you reverted my removal of what I mentioned as erroneous. The draw for the group stage of the 2009–10 UEFA Champions League took place in Monaco on 27 August 2009. As one of the top eight-ranked sides in Europe, Manchester United were seeded in Pot 1, meaning they would avoid the three other English sides in the competition, as well as(...)
Me – Same pot or not, the rule is that you can't face teams from your own association before the second knock-out round (EL-16 and CL-QF), bar exceptional circumstances (CL 2005/6).
You – who said the two statements were connected that way?
Remember? Well... I'm not a native speaker of English, but I still don't understand how the sentence wouldn't make an erroneous link between seeding and avoiding teams from the same league. MUFC did not avoid the three other English teams "as one of the [Pot 1 teams]", but because they are members of the England FA as well. Therefore, there were only 4 teams that Manchester "avoided": the non-English teams of Pot 1.
68.41.131.209,
I didn't block that IP because it hasn't been used in a few days. If it starts getting used again, let me know. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
List of MUFC players
I have nominated List of Manchester United F.C. players for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
You weren't informed of the nomination by the nominee (User:Sandman888) so I felt it only right to let you know. I've added some comments of my own. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Top result tonight too. Becks deserved at least an assist, but Rooney was still world class. Hope he keeps it going until July! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Rafael Pereira da Silva
Hmm, you're right; sorry. However, I don't see that it would be too implausible of a search target, so I don't think it should be deleted. You can always go to RFD if you disagree with me. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The Glazer ownership article
Nice work on the expansion! That's some really good stuff. Just as a minor point, I'm wondering if there's any chance we can get some sources for the early days of Manchester United section of the article. I realise that's really picky, but I know what some people on here are like with {{fact}} templates. What do you reckon? Paralympiakos (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Football Templates
Hi. I noticed you have recently been mass-editing football templates by removing the football box start/end navboxes around them which you explain as clean up. I would like to request further clarity as to why this is. I searched around the related talk pages and articles such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Templates with no mention of this current sweep and furthermore seems to go against the aforementioned article's instructions in using the football box start/end navboxes for standardization purposes which have been in place for ages. It seems to have had negative effects on some articles' template navboxes such as this one. Perhaps I am missing something but a little clarity would help greatly. Cheers. Transaction Go (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I have done some cleanup edits myself however there still seems to be some issues that probably involves the coding and technical part of the framework that is beyond me. This seems like a really long and painful transition. Nonetheless shouldn't the instructions on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Templates be changed/removed to reflect the current transition and prevent reverts from less inquisitive editors. I would do so myself however I'm not sure how to go about editing an guidance page. Regards. Transaction Go (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Blunderland and Balfour
I don't think it was appropriate for you to simply revert my reference to Balfour in Popular Culture, which had links to two other articles to books published in 1902 and 1903 and was not some sort of vandalism. At the very least you ought to have taken it to Talk. -- Evertype·✆ 19:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Ndashes in cl aricles
Oops, sorry, will pay more attention. happy SPD. Geregen2 (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, right. There were already some matches entered in the 2008-09 article and those said "win". "Won" makes more sense, of course. Cheers. Geregen2 (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
UEFA Europa League
"Defending Champions" means that you are DEFENDING something. You can't be the champion of something you no longer have never mind defending nothing. It doesn't take a lot of ingenuity to figure this out. Why can't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamen Somasu (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Defending Champions means that...DEFENDING...CHAMPIONS...it is so simple...more so than 2+2=4. Why can't you get that it is called "defending champions" for a reason? There is no hidden agenda behind it or any conspiracy. Sincerely, do you know how dumb you sound right now?Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Can I write an article about Matheus Silva de Oliveira who has never played in senior career [5]? Is he notable? What are the notability criteria for footballers? PS11 (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- OK. I will be creating articles about players who has played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. PS11 (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Link to the discussion
Thanks, well i just copied the link from your discussion page. PS: Man Utd vs Bayern in the UCL it will be a good match, right?
- Well if Rooney keeps his current condition we won't need the 1999 luckrandom numbers (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Don't worry I felt the same thing in 2008 when Man Utd was against Chelsea in both the UCL and the premier league, I thought that we would lose the league match but we won bothrandom numbers (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
3RR on Association football
Given your block log you don't need a 3RR template. Suffice to say that you are well over the 3rr rule already, anymore reverts, especially if they inappropriately use rollback will lead to a block. Regards, Woody (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- No comment on the actual dispute given that I have given warnings to you both. You know better than to use rollback for a content dispute. Post a neutral note on the FOOTY talkpage and get some uninvolved editors to comment. Woody (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Blocked: Edit warring
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
PeeJay (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was not edit warring, I was reverting the removal of sourced content, which I deemed to be vandalism. The other party was clearly not listening to reason, so I felt my actions were appropriate. – PeeJay 10:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but this source, already in the article, appears to name Andy Anson as assisting with signing AIG. Your claim that this addition was unsourced is invalid. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:03, 21 March 2010 (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.
- From an outside perspective, the original unblock req seemed fair, the IP has continued to remove sourced info without explanation. Perhaps the dclinig admin misread the request? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's what I thought. I've done nothing wrong here, just restoring sourced info. – PeeJay 16:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh. Oops. My apologies, you're right, I was reading the diff backwards. Checking the history in more detail, I see that you added the source I linked to above. Your unblock request is accurate, although I would like to see some attempt to reasonably discuss such issues with the IP editor; your one comment prior to "I'm reporting you" was quite confrontational. In any event, I'll leave PeterSymonds a note to see if we can get this lifted. Apologies again for the mix-up. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Done Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's what I thought. I've done nothing wrong here, just restoring sourced info. – PeeJay 16:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
statto.com
Fantastic site, excellent. Been looking for something like that. Is it considered a reliable source do you know? --Jameboy (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Jack Wilshere
Hi, if you have a minute do you think you'd be able to see if any of your books give the full name of Jack Wilshere? Just there's a G in his name that needs completing, and in the past User:Bocanegra filled this in as Gaylord, so I thought it'd be interesting to see if this is the case. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Final Manchester-Barca
Hi! I was looking at the 2009 UEFA Champions League Final page. I saw that the attendance is 62,467. Well, I'm sure that is impossible. I went to the 2009 Coppa Italia final, whith 68,000 people, and of course the stadium wasn't full as the CL final. Maybe there is a mistake in the UEFA website...or some people entered without tickets (I know two people who managed to do it...). But I swear, I NEVER saw the Olimpico as full as that night (and I go to the Olimpico every Sunday). Is there anything we can do? ;) --Andrea 93 (msg) 14:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi PeeJay. Could you give an update on the status of this FLRC? I know you are still waiting for some information, but there are other actionable issues raised by reviewers. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Juve playing in Milan
I am not sure why, they played in Turin up to quarterfinals. Maybe it's just a mistake in my source? Hmm. Geregen2 (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- You're probably right. Their old Turin stadium had 28,000 capacity and San Siro was 100,000 at the time. Geregen2 (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
What happened to the blue background? Why did you remove that?--Managerarc(talk) 12:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- I feel now it looks more ridiculous, if no background then at least there should be a line border. Start a discussion and then see what the majority thinks!
I have slightly changed your amendments to the Test and Limited Overs templates to keep the current blue colour as the default background. I have left the new bg parameter, so that different colours can be used for the background if this is desired. This probably has the least disruption on the existing pages but allows for future flexibility. Cheers Matt5AU (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Alex Ferguson Testimonial
I think that you are allowed to removed a prod without giving a reason. Not only that, but the article has been prodded and deprodded once before, so prodding isn't really an option. I added a notability tag to give the editor the opportunity to show that this was an article worth keeping, but as you saw it was removed. Do you think there is any significant coverage of this match, or is the article one for AfD? Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you could help to improve the page, or expand it, instead of deleting it. There was a significant coverage of this match, - have a look at youtube. I am not sure how to create the squad numbers and match details, like the ones used in the other notable Manchester United matches. You could try and help me with this. User:Commod (talk) 08.47, 30 March 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 07:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC).
J Stanton
Hi PeeJay, just wondered if you have any info on J Stanton (1860–1932), who played for Newton Heath between 1885 and 1886? I have enough info to create at least a stub, but am just deciding on the correct article title as my sources are fairly evenly split on his "common" first name (James, Jim or Jimmy), so if you have any sources it could be a useful tie-breaker. Cheers --Jameboy (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the info, excellent. I've decided on balance to go with Jimmy Stanton and will let you know when I've created the article. --Jameboy (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Article now created just to let you know. --Jameboy (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
How
In articles where they have game reports, when they show the goalscorers and sometimes the yellow and red cards, how is it supposed to be formatted? Like, for names, are you supposed to put the last name only, or like their jersey name? Because i know David Villa has DAVID VILLA on his jersey, and Sergio Aguero has KUN AGUERO on his jersey. And for players that score more than one goal, is it supposed to be like this, for example: 
32', 88'
or
32' 88'?
I see both all the time. I'm just curious about these two things. Thanks.
Matches templates
Seems like a good idea to me. And no-one could complain of there being too many, as there could only ever be two to a page... ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Manchester United F.C
Hi Tom.
Thanks for the encouragement. Will certainly check out your subpage when I get to Ownership!
Cheers.
Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yer I understand, and I agree. I've think we've reached a pretty good point now. I've added more to the Ownership section, from your article, and I don't think there is much more to add. I've given the wording and order a good look, but will take a look tomorrow with fresh eyes. Other than that, I think my work is pretty much done. Hopefully with a bit more work it could become a featured article. Of course, I'd welcome your edits.
Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh and there are also plenty of citations to add, which again I'm happy to do. Tomlock01 (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for cleaning up the references. For future reference, why have you chosen Barnes as the lead?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlock01 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Righteo, thanks for clarifying. Regards, changing editions from 2nd to 3rd, are all the page numbers the same in your edition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlock01 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Like you, I think the FAC nomination is premature, but with all hands to the pump it could just get through. In any event, what I came to say was that an article can't be at peer review and FAC at the same time, so the peer review will have to be archived. Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:UEFA Euro 2008 logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:UEFA Euro 2008 logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
CSKA Moscow vs Internazionale & Barcelona vs Arsenal
I was quoting the figures in http://soccernet.espn.go.com/ . You just found out the correct figures before me. Thanks. Mr.dadm (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Those figures you found, were maximum attendance at the respective stadiums, not the actual attendance ;o) lil2mas (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Manchester derby page
Hey PeeJay. It's been a while.
A few of us have been discussing an addition to Manchester Derby (see the Talk page), namely a section on players who have played in both teams. I've submitted a proposal here and while OldElPaso assures me his data should be complete (he gave me the list of names) and I have full confidence in him, I'm always one for a second opinion. Also, I'd be the last person to suggest my work was perfect, so as possibly Wikipedia's most preeminent Man United-supporting info merchant, I was wondering if you'd like to look at my proposal and see what you think, and perhaps check to make sure I haven't missed anything. I'm also looking for suggestions such as whether I should add data on all appearances or just the league, and such, or comments on my complete lack of prose. I'm sure you get the picture. If you have the time, I'd love for you to lend me your not-inconsiderable knowledge and perspective and see what you think. Any input would be very appreciated.
Incidentally, I'm going to be going away for a week as of about 12 hours time. Please do leave comments (especially if you leave them today) and I will get back to you over any comments you leave, whether in 10 minutes or 7 days, but if you happen to reply tomorrow then do be aware that I can't reply immediately and I'm half expecting the others involved in the talk page to take over the project and to post something (whether my work or not) before I get back.
Anywho, now that my over-elaborate way of putting a small piece of conversation has no doubt confused you utterly, I'll let you get back to your business. Thanks for your time. Falastur2 Talk 19:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thumbs up. I agree the page is too statty, but I'm not sure what to do about it. That's why I'd love other people to leap in and add their own ideas. Anyway, I'm off out to the cinema so I'll be away for a few hours but if you come up with any suggestions please do say. Or even better, go to my userpage and add them yourself. Wikipedia is all about collaboration, after all. Falastur2 Talk 19:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
April 2010
PeeJay (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was not edit warring on that article. I started a discussion regarding the issue in question, and the other party involved has continued to ignore my requests for discussion. When a user refuses to engage in discussion, WP:AGF can only go so far.
Decline reason:
Yes, repeatedly making the same edit is edit-warring, and the rules against it always apply. When your block expires, try one of the suggestions at WP:DISPUTE instead of edit-warring. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:01, 8 April 2010 (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.
- Unless I'm missing something, this looks like a punitive block as there have been no edits to the article in question in the past 24 hours. I've asked the blocking admin for more details. Nev1 (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm... I didn't notice the date-stamps. That's odd. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, the dispute has resolved itself now. The other user capitulated. – PeeJay 23:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's a response here. Nev1 (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Is it essential that the blocking admin be the one to unblock me? It seems apparent that the blocking admin is willing to unblock me, so surely any admin could perform that task? – PeeJay 23:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, it can be any admin, and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has given it the all clear. If FisherQueen doesn't unblock soon (from her contributions, she may not be around) I'd suggest posting another unblock request. Nev1 (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Is it essential that the blocking admin be the one to unblock me? It seems apparent that the blocking admin is willing to unblock me, so surely any admin could perform that task? – PeeJay 23:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's a response here. Nev1 (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, the dispute has resolved itself now. The other user capitulated. – PeeJay 23:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm... I didn't notice the date-stamps. That's odd. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Answer
I've saw that 1 minute ago. Sorry for the problem. Archibald Leitch (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Nery Castillo
Dear friend, I alread know Nery Castillo was born in Mexico, I am from Mexico as well. I am editig the page because Nery Castillo has 2 nationalities Mexican & Uruguayan due to the nationality of his father. You can see the Nery Castillo's page in Spanish, there are the two flags of his nationality. Another source [6] "Nery Alberto Castillo Confalonieri, nació el 13 de Junio de 1984 en la ciudad de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, México. Es un futbolista Mexicano, que también cuenta con la nacionalidad uruguaya" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seitseman88 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Friend, please answer me. Best Regards,
FIFA 2010 redirect
See Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup#2010 FIFA World Cup video game. Redirecting "FIFA {year}" to the World Cup article is established standard. See FIFA 2002 and FIFA 2006. Please add your rationale for reverting to the World Cup talk page, otherwise I'll have to undo your edit as unhelpful. --78.34.222.55 (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I've undone your intellectually dishonest changes to the other redirects that happened with the apparent sole intent to remove precedent for the 2010 redirect. Present a rationale for each change, but please be honest and straightforward. --78.34.222.55 (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Redacting a word you used
Hi. I deliberately deleted a word you had used in a particular talk page . Just left a note to request you to perhaps not use the word in on-wiki communication. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 13:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Javier hernandez
Can you please stop reverting every little thing that I do, get a life seriously and grow up —Preceding unsigned comment added by FGaribay (talk • contribs) 22:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I didnt make a bad edit its just that Javier hernandez is signing on to Man U, you think that now you get to edit him when you dont even know him I been following that team more than you so you gotta back off on that buddy cuz thats something you will not beat me on —Preceding unsigned comment added by FGaribay (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Re
I responded to your post at my talk - honestly, I think you really were just trying to help. Best, ceranthor 01:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Collective nouns on user talk page
Hi PeeJay2K3. I suggest laying off the discussion at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum; it doesn't look like it is going anywhere productive, and even if it did, it would just be an agreement with one other user. Instead, I suggest you take it to article or project talk, copied to the relevant MoS talk page. I can help you with that if you like. Cheers, --John (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
BTW
I see you've created Book:Manchester United F.C.. However, it's currently orphaned (no articles link to the book). If you want people to know the book exists, just add {{Wikipedia-Books|Manchester United F.C.}} to relevant articles. Ideally most articles of the book should link to the book. If you have any questions, just ask me (or check out Help:Books and WikiProject Wikipedia-Books). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
FA Cup articles
Hi, I'm not convinced by the numerous changes you've made to FA Cup season articles, particularly where the round names have been changed to use the word 'proper'. I don't believe this is in general usage. Is there a particular reason you have changed all of these. I think this should've been discussed first. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- For every season of the FA Cup since the introduction of qualifying rounds to the competition, it has been the custom for the post-qualifying rounds to be suffixed with the word "Proper". This is to differentiate the "Rounds Proper" from the "Rounds Qualifying". The articles for the last few seasons have included the world "Proper", so I don't see any reason why the older ones shouldn't too. – PeeJay 21:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Where is the evidence that the use of 'proper' is in common usage? Eldumpo (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- The rounds are normally just referred to as 'First Round' etc. I don't think people are going to be confused when the earlier rounds listed clearly state 'Qualifying Round'. Eldumpo (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well I see your argument and hopefully you see mine. I may ask for wider input - maybe not. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- The rounds are normally just referred to as 'First Round' etc. I don't think people are going to be confused when the earlier rounds listed clearly state 'Qualifying Round'. Eldumpo (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Where is the evidence that the use of 'proper' is in common usage? Eldumpo (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Manchester United articles
PeeJay, do you have any objections to me going through all the Manchester United articles and updating them in line with the changes to the Manchester United F.C. article. Mainly removing the & from L&YR? Tomlock01 (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Javier H.
This edit heve several issues:
- Image: Unless you give a interal link where copyrighted images are not allowed on BLP the image keep.
- You are removing the hidden note: "Still in Mexico", several user still changing it and adding Manchester, this note must keep until July
- {{cn}} and {{fact}} are almost the same, Why change it?
- On personal data, you are changing "Hernández" for "Hernandez". Hernández have accute acent on the "a"
Thanks. TbhotchTalk C. 01:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree with PeeJay2K3
I'd like to know if he is the administrator of all the pages related to Football?? And why he just reverts what he doesn't agree or what he ignores?? Serioulsy, It seems like a little war between PeeJay2K3 and Soccer-Fan-Wikipedians! We should take some action against that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seitseman88 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Greetings from Australia
Hello PeeJay! Thanks for your edit on my User Talk page. I read your autobiography. Even though I live surrounded by New South Wales I, and most Australians, know very little about Wales. For example, I had never heard of St Asaph. I have read St Asaph, and even made a minor edit to it, so I am now much wiser about your city. I even investigated it using Google Maps so now I know roughly where it is! Thanks for introducing me to your part of the world. Dolphin (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Rio Ferdinand pic tag
Please stop undoing this tag: you are making the informaiton incorrect. You may be more than happy for information to be wrong, but I am not. Ronaldo is NOT Ferdinand's team mate anymore and to say he was the then team mate is incorrect. Please remember that is someone who knows no better looks at that page and picture they would come away with the mistaken belief that the two were still on the same team. If you continue to pursue an edit war on this I will be forced to complain--91.104.77.39 (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Two things: 1) Because it's ridiculous that you're happy for wrong information to be published; and 2) 'Captions are supposed to describe the image they are attached to' Yes - My edit described Ferdinand with his then team-mate, not Ferdinand and a current team-mate! To describe in a caption as them still being on the same team is ridiculous. --91.104.77.39 (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Notts County
Have reinstated derby template the Nottingham derby between Notts and Forest is on the list. Regards --palmiped | Talk 17:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Cricketer infoboxes
I believe your concerns have been addressed here, as they are now all orphaned per WP:CRICKET. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
FC Barcelona seasons
Thanks for cleaning up the first table, I couldn't figure out how to remove the empty cell in the first row without everything going awry. Appreciated! Sandman888 (talk) 07:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
FIFA redirects revisited
Regarding #FIFA 2010 redirect. I'm sorry I have to bring this up once more, but in your revert edit summary, you claimed as your rationale that "if someone types in "FIFA 2002" it is more likely that they will be looking for the video game than the World Cup" (FIFA 2006, 2010).
That reasoning does not hold water, according to article access statistics (I chose March 2010 as the last complete month, but the picture remains the same if you go further back):
- 2002 FIFA World Cup vs. FIFA (series), FIFA 02
- 2006 FIFA World Cup vs. FIFA 06
- 2010 FIFA World Cup vs. FIFA 10
From your edits I gather that you would prefer the redirects to point to the FIFA video game articles. I wouldn't have a problem with that per se, but (a) there apparently was a longstanding consensus for the FIFA 2002 and FIFA 2006 redirects. I perceived your canging them as being solely related to your attempt to keep FIFA 2010 redirecting to the video game. Frankly spoken, I perceived that as, well, intellectually dishonest and collegially in bad taste and (b) according to the access statistics I provided, it appears it is more likely that someone who types in "FIFA 2002" etc. is looking for the World Cup article. At least the access numbers are overwhelmingly far higher for the World Cup articles. If you maintain your assertion that this is not so, I must ask you to back your reasoning up in a reliably sourced, conclusive and logically overriding fashion.
Otherwise, the redirects should point to the World Cup articles like they used to for the longest time. If you rather we discuss this elsewhere, please tell me where. I felt like approaching you directly made the most sense because it appears to be an issue mostly between the two of us at this point. I for one also wouldn't mind a third opinion, if you agree that it could help us resolve the situation amicably and in the project's best interests. --78.34.217.191 (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
removal of defending champions
I agree with your change to Template:Infobox football tournament season, as the defending champions are an attribute of the previous season (I think it could be worked into the prose who the defending champions are, but not in the infobox). I was wondering though, if you know how we do a mass removal of such a redundant parameter in the articles themselves - could possibly need a bot(?), which is something I confess I know nothing about. --Jameboy (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Newport County seasons
Hi Peejay. I noticed you moved the page "Newport County season 2010-11" to "2010-11 Newport County season". Is there a reason for this ? as all the other seasons are listed with the years at the end so looks a bit inconsistent. Best wishes Pwimageglow (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
NPOV - Response
Hi, Peejay, I accept that the use of words such as "abysmal" is perhaps unhelpful and NPOV is a fair assessment. Apologies. Notwithstanding, the point I made was fair. The first half WAS abysmal - but I'll try not to use such words in future.DAAdshead (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Removal of PROD from Aboitiz Football Cup
Hello PeeJay2K3, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Aboitiz Football Cup has been removed. It was removed by Andy14and16 with the following edit summary '(remove prod fails WP:BEFORE)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Andy14and16 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 08:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
AFD
Hi. could you have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rugby union players banned for eye gouging again. I've changed my vote from delete after reworking the article to try and address a lot of the issues that were raised. cheers GainLine ♠ ♥ 08:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
your removal of ilissAfrica links
Hello Peejay, you just removed the links I made towards the internet library sub-saharan Africa on the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup. I didn't quite understand why you qualified them as "spam". ilissAfrica is a serious website by the two German Special Collections for Sub-Saharan Africa financed by the German Research Foundation. Via our website, several africa specific catalogues and databases can be searched via a metasearch, additionally, we built up an internet database with chosen and indexed website links. ilissAfrica is certainly a very good instrument for finding qualified literature and websites for the topic "Africa and football" and it got a lot of positive feedback from researchers and librarians worldwide. I hope I could convince you to add the links again ;-) Kind regards, Nadia, Scientific Assistant, internet library sub-saharan Africa (ilissAfrica), University Library Frankfurt, --141.2.166.212 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Not just because it's current. UEFA Champions League is suppose to be the best club competition in the world. People just might want to read up onthe competition articles. Especially since this is the current one. Kingjeff (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Did you not read my above statement? I gave another reason why it should be classed as a Top Importance, Kingjeff (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
And you're the authority on the issue? Kingjeff (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
So, just because I disagree with you, I am absolutely wrong and not allowed to show that I disagree with you? Kingjeff (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Why would I admit being wrong when I don't think I'm wrong? Kingjeff (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Why am I so wrong? Kingjeff (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I think UEFA Champions League article and it's season articles is "integral". Having whole and complete articles for major FIFA and Confederation tournaments is very important for the "integral" articles on football. Kingjeff (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
What is the most important club competition in the world? Kingjeff (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Please stop edit-warring. How incredibly stupid. Grsz11 22:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Aamer's over - ICC T20 World Cup
Hi there, I saw your comment about changing the term 'triple-wicket maiden' to 'three-wicket maiden'. It's my understanding that the correct term is triple, not three in this case, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over_(cricket). Your thoughts? MC Rocks 12:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Table format dispute
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#CONMEBOL tables and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This whole debacle
Hey PeeJay2K3, just wanted to pop by and try to urge you to disengage a little from this ridiculous situation. The arb case is laughable, the sockpuppetry case more so, allow those pushing this to hoist themselves by their own petard. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly understand. But as I said, it's ridculuous, clearly, and right now this editor is, as you saying, steaming towards an indefinite block. Keep away from it, if you can, and just watch it unfold. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
"Trivia"
Tom- Thanks for all the work you do on Wikipedia- lots of good stuff there. I notice that after you improved this section of the 2010 Champions League final, you changed your mind and removed it:
"It is the fifth final in European Cup history in which both managers are previous winners; the others were in 1962, 1978, 2002 and 2007. It will be the first Champions League final where none of the finalists exited the group stage as group winners."
I would respectfully suggest that the word "trivia" should really relate to irrelevant information (e.g. which hotels the teams use, or possibly information about the history of the Bernabeu). In contrast, the historical context of the game and any unusual features are well worth including.
So I will undo your changes (once): but I don't do revert wars with people who obviously know their subject, so you're welcome to have the final word. Best wishes, Pete Ridges (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
re: vandalism
It's the most ridiculous thing I've seen on this site... ever. Apparently to him, vandalism is a message on his talkpage advising him that personal attacks (like the one here) will not be tolerated. It's a very fair warning considering I haven't reported him for personal attacks in the past on multiple occasions. Digirami (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Copyright
Yeah, I know some of it was a bit copyrighted. That's why I added the source after every full stop. The flow in the paragraph was very good, and for a non-native speaker it is hard to re-write such a perfect paragraph, though I did change the transitions slightly. I actually knew you were going to check the article (and re-write some parts), and the article will be heavily edited in the near future, as well as after the matches have been played. So I don't think we will experience any copyright issues anyway. But thanks for the heads-up. lil2mas (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Template policy discussion
You are invited to help consider a common template policy for all WP:SPORTS biography articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports#Template_policy_discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Association Football competitions
I don't think a task force is big enough for what i have in mind. As far as the WP council is concerned, I decided to forgo it since I plan to use this to work alongside WP Football. You're welcome to join if you like. I just think that there should be a bigger emphasis on the big competitions like world cups, confederation competitions and professional leagues. Especially the top-flight leagues. Kingjeff (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry dude
For what it's worth, I'm really only hoping for Chelsea 10-0 Wigan.... (would wipe around some rather unpleasant memories!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- You know what, at 6-0 and with 23 minutes to go, I really thought they'd do it. Oh well, better luck next season, for both of us! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Atletico Madrid
If Atletico Madrid wins both the Europa League and Copa del Rey, they go into the Group Stage, La Liga's 6th placed team goes into the Playoff Round and La Liga's 7th place team takes the cup winners' place and goes into the 3rd qualifying tound. Is this true? Kingjeff (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Wind up merchant?
Are you deliberately trying to bait me or what? You are having a bloody laugh if you think that nobody takes notice of who is the top scoring Englishman in a season. [7] We can debate whether that particular article is the venue for it or not, even I'm not settled on that, but frankly, your actions in simply blanking it, suggests you really don't give a toss about having it anywhere, and your only goal here seems to be to wind me up, by edit warring for a second time over this bloody article. If I could, I would bloody delete the whole bastard thing. MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- What ever happened to assuming good faith? The article is about the Premier League Golden Boot. They do not give an award to the top-scoring Englishman in the Premier League each season, so although it may be interesting to know, it's not appropriate to put that info in an article about a strictly defined award. – PeeJay 19:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- You edit war with me on the same article for a second day, you twice blank a section which is not problematic, clearly has merit somewhere on the pedia unless you are being deliberately obtuse, and has clearly taken time to write, and you act as if your opinion is the only one that is right, while patronising me and telling me I need to assume good faith in you, the person who is, by anybody's standard's except yours it seems, is deliberately aggravating another editor, and not editting in a collaborative manner. So sorry, no, I've got no good faith left to offer you. If you want to truly demonstrate you are not this person, self-revert, and open a discussion on the talk page so that people can see the section being discussed. Otherwise, I have got no reason, not a single one, to assume you are not this person. MickMacNee (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- While I believe the deleted content doesn't necessarily belong in the Golden Boot article, I would really prefer to see you two (and the rest of the community) chatting this through, perhaps at the project, or, at least, on the talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
So you aren't a wind up merchant then? Am I to assume good faith yet again, after this?. Do I have to yet again draw out with pliers from you, something that others give out as a natural courtesy? I didn't even know it was you who had removed it, under the rather deceptive edit summary of 'update' as it turns out, but here we are again, you've reverted something twice that you can clearly identify as my contribution. I don't know what saddens me most, the idea that this might truly be a campaign against me personally, or that you might be doing this to several people as just a normal modus operandi, a way of ensuring all football articles are on PeeJay time. Either way, it's bad for the pedia. It's really sad that Chris Cunningham thinks FOOTY is a "model project", all I see is a topic that is positively dominated by one editor with a huge ownership problem. I swear to God I reckon if I picked any random football article I will find in its history at some point an edit war where you are simply asserting your personal opinion, and warring to impose it. I'm sure you think you are right in your own mind, and I'm sure you have some way of justifying the inclusion of a veritable essay all about the host stadium, while not even mentioning in just two lines that Hamburg, the stadium's occupier, got knocked out one game away from a final in their own stadium, but frankly, that doesn't even matter. MickMacNee (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry
I know that they do so in England, but they rarely say the football association to which the referee is affiliated to. In Spain, they also rarely mention the referee's name. They only say their two surnames. I am the one who should apologise, as I may of been quite harsh on the edit summary. Again I apologise. You're doing a great job:)! Qampunen (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Who are you to think you know everything about a game, and say what is good and isn't good. People don't need to be published in a gaming magazine to give something critical reception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpdaniele (talk • contribs) 15:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
It's an Official EA sports forum, and the users there represent various gamers, each expressing opinions. The link to the world cup site has the most replies on the forum, and thus, there are significant amounts of people that have shown displeasure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpdaniele (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Man United player lists
Hey PeeJay, I purchased this book today, which I thought would be useful for creating a list for United players with less than 100 appearances. I will start on it as soon as I can and perhaps you could help me put together a lede section and add references. Let me know. 03md 17:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I did - I meant to buy it ages ago but never got around to it. When I saw it today for £6.99 I thought I must get it lol. I then went into Waterstones and they were still selling it full price! Anyway, it's great you can help. Do you think we should have a couple of articles like I have been working on with Fulham, or just one for all players below 100 appearances? 03md 21:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well for Fulham I did 1-25 and 25-99, which, when finished, will produce similar length lists. at the moment the 25-99 is split into two tables but I may decide to merge this eventually. Maybe this could work for us. 03md 22:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
crvena zvezda
- Well that failed. But your comment is being addressed here, [8] Your comment was in support of this. (LAz17 (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)).
david jones
Hi,check on the history page for David Jones (footballer born 1984) and go on the second from top and it has a picture of him and an infobox.Write back if you know what going on. Cheers mate,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Warning
Can you (and Halister24) please stop reverting each other, you have long since breached WP:3RR on this article. Edit warring ruins the project for other editors, and for that reason, further pointless reversions will result in your account being blocked. Nick (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Mikael Silvestre
Just because Mikael Silvestre has not "officially" retired from the French national team does not mean that his international career is not over. It is. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of footballers with articles on wiki who have played for their national side, and not held a press conference to "officially" retire. Nevertheless, their international careers are indeed over- Jerome Rothen and Benoit Pedretti to name two of Silvestre's countrymen. He did not sign a contract to play for France, nor does he receive a pension by "officially retiring" from the side. He is chosen by the national team manager based upon his recent performances for club and country, his past performances for country, and his age. He has never been an integral part of the French squad- his wiki bio is pretty specific about that. He played at 2 major championships for France- Euro 2004 and World Cup 2006. At the former, he played poorly, and at the latter he only appeared once. That one appearance four years ago was THE LAST time that he played for France. He will be 33 by the start of next season. The last time a 33 year old was called up for France, their names were Zidane, Thuram, and Makelele, three legends who were begged to come out of "official" retirement. To top it off, I found you a nice little article to back up my points. The article is from Tom Adams on ESPN soccernet.com. He rates the performances of Arsenal's players this season on a scale of 1 to 10. Out of 25 first team players, Silvestre ranked 23rd with a 4.5 out of 10.[3] Hardly a guy who I think will be playing for France in the future. More like a guy who will be announcing his retirement from the game altogether. I'm glad you like Silvestre. He once was a class player with lots of pace. Maybe you got an auto from him, maybe posed for a pic, maybe you love Man Utd like I do, or maybe Arsenal. I don't know. The fact of the matter is, SILVESTRE'S FRANCE CAREER IS OVER!!!!!Tslims99 (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Re:Mikael Silvestre
99% of footballers who have played a game for their national team never "officially declare" that they are ineligible. For example, Ruud Van Nistelrooy was hoping like hell to make the Netherlands squad for the upcoming World Cup. His manager decided not to select him. Van Nistelrooy himself said that because of this, he, "Think(s) [his] international career is over. I will be 34 in July." He didn't declare himself ineligible, his manager decided his international career is over. Van Nistelrooy doesn't want it to be over, but it is, and Ruud knows that and admits that.[4] I'll bet if Domenech called Silvestre today and said, "Guess what, Mike? I want you to come to the World Cup with us and start!", Silvestre would be looking for the next plane to South Africa. But the chances of that happening are greater than 1 million to one. What I am trying to say and you are being irrational about is that most footballers don't call time on their international careers, their national team managers and federations do. And whether you or Mikael Silvestre likes it or not, he is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever playing for France again. Ever. I think I have more than proved my point.Tslims99 (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
You want verifiable? Silvestre is not included on the wiki page for the France national football team as a current squad member or for recent call ups, as he had not been called up in over 18 months, and not played in 4 years. I just sent you an article dated last week from a reputable news source specifically mentioning how bad Silvestre is. You are asking me for evidence that he is not on the national team, when you without a shadow of a doubt can't show me evidence that he still is!
By your rationale, every player who has ever sat on France's bench is still on the National Team, as long as they are still playing professionally somewhere. Correct? Whether they played once or 100 times. Whether they currently play in Azerbaijan or France or maybe no league at all. Whether they are 16 or 46. Of course, as long as they have not declared themselves "ineligible" or retired, right? It's always up to the players to decide when they are off the team, huh? With young guys like you growing up watching Drogba, I can see how that is the misconception. Well, if that is so, I'm going to need you to find all of these players, and add them the the France national football team wiki page. It might be 200 players, but that's okay! According to you, the France national team could have over 200 players! How lovely! Don't forget Ulrich Rame, Sylvain Wiltord, Ludovic Giuly, and Ousmane Dabo, because by your logic, they are all still on the France national team because, hey, they never said they weren't, right? Stop arguing this. You are wrong. Period. If France's entire team dies in a plane crash on the way to the World Cup and Silvestre has to step into the squad, then you can change his info box. Until then, I have provided enough verifiable evidence to prove without a reasonable doubt that Mikael Silvestre's international career is over.Tslims99 (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Cheers, man. I'm not gonna continue to jibe with a fellow United man. I'll make you a deal...if Silvestre earns another cap for France before he retires, I'll buy two tickets to a United match and meet you there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tslims99 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
"standardised"
I'm just trying to get people to think a bit more widely, PeeJay - we have dedicated football fans who might not read FIFA's abbreviation list.
There is no one set of abbreviations that is standard in football, never mind the wider world at large - no matter what FIFA decide to promulgate on their website. The very existence of this article is reason enough to avoid using them, and the vast majority of news outlets and references will use their own standards that don't exactly match any of these. FIFA might like to claim "standardisation", but actual practise is very different. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Sock VANDAL
Hi there PEEJAY, VASCO here,
Regarding your message to User:Satori Son about reversions of a banned user, please see my additions (here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Satori_Son#Reversion_of_contributions_by_banned_user). I bet my life it is him, saying "talk to the hand". He has 30+ socks, he has (seemingly) unendless anon IPs, he removes LINKS/REFS, writes ZERO summaries, he engages in no talkpage conversations, turns club names into redirects (ex. S.L. Benfica is "re-written" SL Benfica), etc.
Adding insult to injury, an admin deletes an article he created, and what does he do? RE-CREATE IT!! This "person" deserves nothing but utter despise, and Satori did and excellent job i think.
Not hoping to get any answer (don't know why) again, but keep up the good work, be safe,
From Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Owen Hargreaves
You may wish to look at Talk:Owen Hargreaves/GA1. Kingjeff (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
River/Afon Mawddach and Wnion
The 1953 Ordnance Survey map shows the rivers as Afon Mawddach and Afon Wnion, in contrast to the Dyfi which is shown as River Dovey (Afon Dyfi). The current edition OS map also shows the Mawddach and Wnion as Afon rather than River. Therefore the standard English mapping reference for place names has used Afon for at least half a century. RGCorris (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The persistent guy on the Freddy Adu page
This is getting ridiculous. What the hell are we going to do about him? --JonBroxton (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL violation at User_talk:Brudder_Andrusha
The repeated reinsertion of this content on another users talk page is completely inappropriate. Active Banana (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Redirects from hyphens to endashes
Hi. The bot is running.[9] emijrp (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
T20 abbreviations
Hi, Don't have a problem with you changing the abbreviations for the T20 stuff, but just wondered whether you know anywhere else (other then wiki) uses T20I? - is that actually a standard convention, or is it just ours? it always looks hard to read for the uninitiated to me! I was also just trying to expand the headers to fill the space a little! Twenty20 is seen probably as often as T20 after all... —User:MDCollins (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Tevez
Hello mate, please dont joke me, everyone know Tevez is not 1.73m tall. "Who says the Premier League is correct?" that's a nonsense: in that case I could say "Who says Sky sports is correct?" ... Premier League official website is the most reliable source we have and we must follow it. I cant undestand why you want to appear Tevez higher than he is. Tevez is not over 1.70m but if you want to confirm a falsity I cant do anything. Cheers, --Exorcist Z (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, you have two sources, well, I have:
- PremierLeague.com --> 168cm
- Soccerbase.com --> 5'6 (168cm)
- BBC Sport --> 168cm
- Wldcup.com --> 168cm
- Many other sources say 5'7 (170cm), example: Footballdatabase.com, Footballdatabase.eu, The Guardian, The Independent, American ESPN
- Some sources say 169 cm, example: équipe, National Football Teams.
In short: his height is controversial but he's not certainly 1.73m tall. PS: In en:wiki is there a project football? I would ask there, please. Thanks from Italy --Exorcist Z (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Copyediting
Hello Peejay, I just saw your comment on Talk:List of FC Barcelona presidents. I've included three paragraphs on it now, but if you wd care to have a quick look at the rest of the article and say what you think on it, that wd be appreciated. Alternatively if you cd (also) have a quick look at the List of Players' nomination that wd help a lot. Cheerio! Sandman888 (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Good luck...
...weeding out all the POV from United's history articles. The joys of supporting the world's most popular club. - Dudesleeper talk 15:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Euro 2016. Please contact me.
Hello.
I have a website. subject: Euro 2016 [10]
Would you like to become an editor? We need editors who can speak English.
Please contact me: nilbek@hotmail.com.tr or tr:User:Nazif_İLBEK
Overflaggage
In World Cup final articles having a little flag next to a team name then a few lines later a really big flag is a bit excessive, surely? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument as there isn't a MOS for match articles. Football articles would be much nicer if flags were banned completely! Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
2010 FIFA World Cup formatting
The article is very long, just like the other world cup articles. But I'm wondering if we can follow the 2006 format in which the controversies, media, etc sections are moved to separate articles to make the main page shorter. For example, 2006 FIFA World Cup. Plus I'd prefer the goal scorers for each match to appear on the main page, instead of a spin-off page. Your thoughts? GWST11 (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
2010 FIFA World Cup squads
Alright, now that you've pulled out the rulebook and ignored how this article now looks atrocious; it's safe to say that you will go back and change every single previous FIFA World Cup squad so that it follow this format? --Spartan008 (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
No Friend
Please change , seccond assistant in Mexico South Africa is not from Kazahkstan but from KYRGYZTAN! --190.178.176.26 (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks and excuse me for that little correction ^^ but I felt bad for the Kyrgyz people. :-)--190.178.176.26 (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
N-dashes.
Hey man. I understand. But I think someone might eventually take out the spaces via scripts or another method, like here in a similar article. I figured I might as well beat it to the punch. Digirami (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The v is traditional in the U.K. while vs is traditional in the U.S.. Other articles already have the v so there are more issues than fixing the links. Ultimately, adding your national preference is equivalent to changing the date format or spelling to your national preference. This sort of change should be done only after consensus has been sought. I would appreciate you undoing the changes and starting a dialog rather than adding your own preference to one article under the WikiProject Football project on your own terms. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Does it really make that much difference? Given the right context, a British person would understand that "vs" means "versus", just as an American person would understand that "v" means the same thing. In fact, "vs" is a little more clear about that, and at least this way we are being consistent. – PeeJay 01:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes it does. The reverse could also be stated. An American could figure out that v, which is commonly used in soccer as well, means versus. But it's not comprehension that's the issue, it's consistency and the general policy that formatting along national ground stays in place. The rules for number and date formatting is whatever makes sense for the subject. If either could make sense, then the first major editor wins. Applying a national format is not acceptable and considered a mild form of vandalism. I guarantee that if you leave it, a Brit will change it back and then you'll be in an edit war. I saw the reverse happen earlier today in a different article: "vs" move to "v" for consistency. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I could move them all back, but all of the links now point to the "vs" versions of the section titles. Do you think there is any point? – PeeJay 01:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Meh. I don't rally care one way or the other, I just don't want it to end up as an edit war. Bring it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Ask if it matters to them. They all have strong opinions on things that they care about. If there's no consensus, it will stay the way it is now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think I may as well leave it as it is for now. If anyone else changes it back, I will bring it up on the article's talk page. – PeeJay 01:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Meh. I don't rally care one way or the other, I just don't want it to end up as an edit war. Bring it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Ask if it matters to them. They all have strong opinions on things that they care about. If there's no consensus, it will stay the way it is now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I could move them all back, but all of the links now point to the "vs" versions of the section titles. Do you think there is any point? – PeeJay 01:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nice job on the clean-up of 2010 FIFA World Cup schedule --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Cheers. – PeeJay 01:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes it does. The reverse could also be stated. An American could figure out that v, which is commonly used in soccer as well, means versus. But it's not comprehension that's the issue, it's consistency and the general policy that formatting along national ground stays in place. The rules for number and date formatting is whatever makes sense for the subject. If either could make sense, then the first major editor wins. Applying a national format is not acceptable and considered a mild form of vandalism. I guarantee that if you leave it, a Brit will change it back and then you'll be in an edit war. I saw the reverse happen earlier today in a different article: "vs" move to "v" for consistency. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Reminder, please don't comment on the editors when submitting comments. I know some folks think that the matches should be sequential. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Not news vs. World Cup updates
Hi there. I noticed that you try to keep updates from World Cup related articles while the game is still on-going. Unfortunately, your edits also mean that you run a risk of edit-warring almost all the time, which cannot be in the interest of those articles or the project itself. Could you please tell me why you think such edits are prohibited by a policy or guideline and need to be reverted? Regards SoWhy 14:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Green Lines
Hi!
There's a discussion about the green lines going on at WP:AN#Template:2010 FIFA World Cup Group C. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Doc Quintana (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Doc Quintana (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Doc Quintana (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Doc Quintana (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
This is always a hard thing to verify, but I'm pretty sure his name is Évra. As you probably know, the French usually leave the acute accent off capital letters, despite it being a part of words, but our normal policy is to use them anyway. As for whether this is one of those cases, a cursory Google search for "évra" patrice turns up 11k hits (despite the aforementioned lack in most French sources), and the French article has the acute. That was convincing enough for me, at least.
Now if we could just get the French to use their accents in their language... — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Beware
comments like the one you've made with your last edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_FIFA_World_Cup_schedule&action=historysubmit&diff=367997387&oldid=367988497 might get you in trouble (i.e. see Wikipedia:No personal attacks) So take it easy, ok? :) --Vlad|-> 17:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Please respond
PeeJay, please could you do me the courtesy of responding to my question to you here? Regards, Bazonka (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Leave me alone
Wolverine, good one prick. I've met my fair share of Welsh but you are seriously the first one who is a total ass. --Spartan008 (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Look, on the WIKIFootball page I admitted that I was in the wrong. The whole reason I went to the page was because I wanted the problem solved with other users chiming in on the subject. I reverted your edits because nothing had been agreed and the only reason I mentioned edit war was because some of the previous sections on your talk page seemed to point to you being involved in them. If it's any consolation I do apologize. --Spartan008 (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Match Balls
You appear to disagree with my edit - please explain your issue with it. Thanks. 84.92.169.252 (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your terse message - I feel it is pertinent to an article that already contains a section on match balls. Maybe you would prefer a separate page about the match balls? - 84.92.169.252 (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
June 2010
PeeJay (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I tried reasoning with the anonymous editor, didn't I? What am I supposed to do when another editor won't engage in a dialogue with me? We can't just leave incorrect information lying about for fear of 3RR. – PeeJay 11:13 pm, Today (UTC+1)
Decline reason:
To give my own frank opinion, this is one of the stupidest edit wars I've ever seen. I actually came here to remove your rollback rights, but I see Toddst1 beat me to it. Judging from your talk page and your block log, you seem to have a tendency to get into silly edit wars and I think this is necessary to prevent further such edit warring, which is extremely damaging to the article and the project. May I ask why you felt the need to revert the IP for changin a link to a redirect to the same article? Further, an experienced editor such as yourself must know that AIV is not the place to report edit wars. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:25, 16 June 2010 (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 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
By the way, you obviously haven't noticed that that anonymous editor has been around for a few weeks now, using different IPs. I know it's him because he keeps changing the same content, and only that content. At no point has that user ever even tried to engage in discussion on the topic. I realise that my comments on his latest IP's talk page may seem a little harsh, but I've been dealing with this user for weeks and I'm only just managing to avoid swearing at him. – PeeJay 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
WP:NOTTHEM. Besides, you've been here long enough to know how to properly obtain assistance in dealing with vandals, and avoid edit wars. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:50, 16 June 2010 (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.
Rollbacker
I've removed your rollback privileges since you misused them by employing them in an edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK, fair enough. It was making reversion too easy anyway. I was getting lazy with my edits. – PeeJay 22:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi PeeJay2K3, you should have been alerted that you have been mentioned at WP:WQA since 14 June. I see no sign that you have been alerted, so here it is. Regards. Dolphin (t) 06:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Welsh home stadium section
Just wondered if i could improve the stadium section part of the welsh national football team? the section seems hidden and needs improving.DeeKol (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
United Global Brand
Hey mate. Thanks for tidying up the new Global Brand section, especially the references. After reading that, what else do you think we are missing in terms of scope? Cheers. Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK great. Tomlock01 (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Shall we nominate Manchester United F.C for FA now? Its had a good copy-edit. Tomlock01 (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Tom, can you help with this:
- Shall we nominate Manchester United F.C for FA now? Its had a good copy-edit. Tomlock01 (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- What makes StretfordEnd.co.uk a reliable source?
The fact that it is the official club statistics website, and is now used by the club itself as the primary source of statistics. (my response) Can you provide a link to the section of the website where it lists the sources used then, beacuse I can't find it. Without knowing where the site was compiled from, it goes down as original research. BigDom 16:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Is this right? I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia rules to know if this is true or not. Thanks, Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
"Cleanup"
This isn't cleanup. Using "frameless" instead of a hard-coded size allows for the image to adapt to the reader's thumbnail settings, and the "playername" attribute is only needed if the article title is different. I've undone these. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Rugby Union project assessment guidelines
Well, I have tried to pick up the pieces from where things were left off about two years ago, in compiling new assessment guidelines for the Rugby Union Project. Do you want to weigh in and help us get this done? Cheers.SauliH (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Wales U21 Football
what you on about? every other team has it. why cant wales? .DeeKol (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
1997–98 UEFA Champions League
You just deleted what I wrote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997%E2%80%9398_UEFA_Champions_League
You do not understand and did not try to understand what is written on the page with an error.
In the list of games is not written that (outside) Club Table written is not the club.
In the list of games that are written not right (completely extraneous) club.
I wrote, look closely UEFA Website.
And trace the story of two Clubs.
Site RSSSF
http://www.rsssf.com/tablesa/armechamp.html
as independent championship
1992 Shirak Gyumri and Homenetmen Yerevan
1993 Ararat Yerevan
1994 Shirak Gyumri
1995 transitional spring season (Shirak and Ararat won groups)
1995/96 Pyunik Yerevan [I]
1996/97 Pyunik Yerevan [I]
1997 FK Yerevan (transitional fall season)
1998 Tsement Ararat
1999 Shirak Gyumri
2000 Araks Ararat
2001 Pyunik Yerevan [II]
2002 Pyunik Yerevan [II]
2003 Pyunik Yerevan [II]
2004 Pyunik Yerevan [II]
2005 Pyunik Yerevan [II]
2006 Pyunik Yerevan [II]
2007 Pyunik Yerevan [II]
2008 Pyunik Yerevan [II]
2009 Pyunik Yerevan [II]
Why are written Pyunik Yerevan [I] and Pyunik Yerevan [II]
This goes a different club.
Write a list of games the team Pyunik Yerevan [I] (the modern name Kilikia Yerevan)
The two clubs Pyunik Yerevan [I] and Pyunik Yerevan [II]
Only the names are identical. But it is a different club.
In Europe, this very few people know.
--Gavrilov Sergey (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
ospreys/Scarlets templates
hey just a suggestion. you know when youve changed the names of the templates over. well i cant edit the template itself and when i go to do so it gives me a redirect. next time before you go do stuff like that can you change the name inside the template first to the name of the page so this doesnt happen okay. Swanseajack4life (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!
Hi there PEEJAY, longtime no "see", VASCO here,
I want to thank you for duly renaming Danny (footballer)'s page, that is how it should be called - that or his full name, or parts of. I tried it once with Guti (footballer), which also had a wrong name/nickname compound for page title, and it was reverted, for lack of start of pertinent discussion. Hopefully, after some "top level" conversations, it was allowed to stay. Come on, it's like having Ronaldinho's page being named "RONALDINHO ASSIS" or Bebeto's named "BEBETO GAMA".
Man, what happened to "be bold"? I wouldn't be surprised if they ("they" namely being User:Barocci) change it back again to its WRONG title. If it does, please let me know if the correct place to start a discussion is in the article's talkpage (assuming it is, i already "dropped" a note there).
Take care, have a nice weekend, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
2010 FIFA World Cup Schedule templates usage
Hi there,
I noticed that you object to the templates I created (no offense taken, let me say that first) and that you and another editor are reverting each other's reverts. There is now a discussion here. I duly respect what you are doing for Wikipedia and all the contributions you have made thus far, so please join the discussion and explain to us why my templates are such a bad idea. I don't have to "be right" or anything, I created the templates in good faith because I want what's best for Wikipedia, but if in an attempt of being helpful I accidentally did the exact opposite then feel free to enlighten me ;-) Sincerely and respectfully, Skysmurf (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you have again removed the templates without engaging in any discussion whatsoever, so I'm asking again: please please please discuss this (discussion can be found here) before persisting this controversial edit. Thank you. Skysmurf (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Cardiff students
Hi PeeJay, you edited out my external link to student lists from the Cardiff University article. My fault - I jumped the gun. I'd altered the student lists page to include a reference to Cardiff but it hadn't gone live. I should have waited. It has now. I re-checked the number of University College Cardiff students in the 1901 list. There are at least 400 (I used the acronym "Univ Coll. Cardiff) so I think this is a useful link for anyone interested in Cardiff's history. I'll put a note re this in the talk page and we'll see what the response is. All the best, Richard Temple —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard temple (talk • contribs) 12:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you having an upsetting day?
Because you're certainly in a cantankerous mood deleting things you don't like and asking questions that have have been discussed and answered in your apparent ignorant bliss. To answer your most recent question: "who decided that would be a good idea?": not me, but it was discussed. There's also a question for you on talk:2010 FIFA World Cup schedule as there is a need for the templates you deleted there, although I know you don't like them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to be uncivil with this comment. Sorry if it came across that way. I was trying to be humorous. I'll try not to be humorous in the future and simply state that you missed the discussion that answered the question you were asking. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 18:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re:"Why exactly do you exist?"
Well not really. For months now there´s been an IP who´s only wikipedia activity is to change the link "Carlos Eugineo Simon" to "Carlos Simon", which just redirects back to the Carlos Eugênio Simon page anyway and gets reverted straight away. Then a few days later it does the same thing and then it just gets reverted again. That´s all it does. Just one innocent and small change but without any sort of human realisation that it´s futile or any attempt at doing something to stop it being constantly reverted. So it´s actually an honest question. What is it´s purpose? What is going on at the other end of the IP? Why??? Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Corry Evans
sorry about that my brother was messing about on my account whilst i were gone, sorry for the inconveniance. Liamtaylor007 (talk) 09:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Hey, thanks for correcting me at the FIFA World Cup 2010 article. Don´t know why i thought it would have 62 matches. :p Head was gone for a second... Kante4 (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Just
I discover you have a great problem. It is not easy to say, such as, you believe the news from skysports (company) and unbelieve the news(differ) from FIFA (government). It is very laughable. Hoising (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? FIFA.com also capitalises the surnames when written without a first name. See here. – PeeJay 16:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is another problem... like the problem about the Franch captain Hoising (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- What's your point? – PeeJay 16:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- government > company in sometime. Hoising (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, you're still not making any sense. What are you alluding to? – PeeJay 16:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Bad analytical. (I understand it is very rude, so I don't want to say that.) Hoising (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Bad analytical"? Analytical of what? – PeeJay 16:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- The true. Change you attitude... don't be a child with high ed. Hoising (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- In what way have I misrepresented the truth? – PeeJay 16:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- The media may be wrong but we are not short. Media misrepresented the truth and we would got it. However, the base of the event must show the truth. This is no right/wrong, just talk. Hoising (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I take it, then, that you have not read WP:VERIFY. Wikipedia's policy is "verifiability, not truth". And since more sources verify the usage I have posited than that which you have posited, we should stick to the way things were. – PeeJay 17:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I read but one is more precise and otherone is less precise. Why you can take the less precise one and responsibility is nothing. Attitude. Hoising (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- See *. Belligerent and Stubborn. No more I want to say. Hoising (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Reverting edit in 2010 FIFA Wold Cup Final Article
Hiya Tom, I noticed that you reverted my edit in 2010 FIFA World Cup Final article. I know it's not a fixing edit (sorry that was a clicking mistake). But as there was the {{nft}} template, wouldn't you agree that we should use it (it's optional though..)? Best wishes, — Tanvir 07:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, in the doc page of {{nft}}, they said nothing about substitution. But I see in {{fc}} doc page to substitute the template. I think nft is just for writing the team name easily without the words "national football team". What say you? — Tanvir 09:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I also see no technical differences between them. BTW It's not a big deal buddy. You may substitute it or not. But I prefer the documentation, and not to substitute. It saves few bytes. — Tanvir 16:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The image is too large
.jpg){kind=link}
Covers two sections of copy and looks like crap. I'm sorry that you can't see that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
"Van" vs "van"
If you read this page, you will see that when Giovanni van Bronckhorst is referred to without his first name, he is referred to as "Van Bronckhorst", not "van Bronckhorst". Van Bommel, De Zeeuw and Van der Vaart are also referred to with capitalised names. – PeeJay 15:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sky Sports also does the same, as do The Guardian and The Telegraph. – PeeJay 15:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am so sorry about that since he is a Dutchman. So, we must follow the Dutch name rule, like van der Waal, and Stefan Kießling (not Stefan Kiessling) in Germany.Hoising (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's policy is to use names as they appear in English-language media. I have shown you several extremely reputable sources that capitalise the "Van"; can you do the same? – PeeJay 15:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- It not the case. The name must be follow the original rule. Do you remember Côte d'Ivoire should not be named Ivory Coast? Hoising (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Would you like me to show you several English-language sources that use "Cote d'Ivoire" as well? – PeeJay 15:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Okay... one global website - Yahoo! Netherlands v Japan, Fixtures and Results Hoising (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Those sites you have shown me only support my position. Read the live commentary of the Netherlands v Japan game. – PeeJay 15:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hey guy ... Please read the lineup. Hoising (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- You have completely missed the point of what I was saying. When the name is written with a first name or initial, of course the "van" is not capitalised, but when there is no first name or initial, it is capitalised. – PeeJay 15:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- ??? missed point ??? Capitalized in Netherlands v Japan since the auto-capitalize function for the paragraph. For the lineup, the writer understand how to handle the preposition. The point of what I was saying is written name should be follow the original rule of each country. Hoising (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Again, you obviously don't understand. In the line-up, the surnames are preceded by the initial of the player's first name, hence why it is not capitalised. Get a clue. – PeeJay 15:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you know what is the different between Rate Players and Lineup? Did you read all lines in the Live Commentary and nobody want his named shown in wrong words. Hoising (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, settle down, I didn't see the line-up bit. Nevertheless, one example out of many is not sufficient proof that the names should not be capitalised. – PeeJay 16:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Put this problem to the Community should be better. Hoising (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- No source? You mean the personal experiences of several residents of the Netherlands don't count? – PeeJay 16:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- How many people said two thousands and ten(2010) before? The answer should be found in the offical documents. Hoising (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, you've lost me now. You're talking nonsense. – PeeJay 16:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nonsense you are. Hoising (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
You have all the fun on your talk page PeeJay2K3. If this had been on one the football articles it would have been pointed-out that Wikipedia uses the Dutch rules for capitalization of Dutch family names. When the name is presented following the given name it is lower case. When presented without the given name it is capitalized. The Dutch name article discusses it in the Dutch name#Tussenvoegsels section: "In the Netherlands, the tussenvoegsel is written with a capital letter if no name precedes it.". In short, User:PeeJay2K3 is right. No idea what happened after User:Hoising pointed to a match line-up though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Heh heh, nice discussion
- Being Dutch myself I can honestly say that in our language the van (and other such "tussenvoegsels") is in caps when it starts a name (as in: "This sucks", Van Persie said.) and in lower case when (a) given name(s) or initials precede it (as in: "This sucks", Robin van Persie said.).
- Then again, those are just the Dutch rules. If Wikipedia guidelines state that those rules should be followed, then that's how it is. Do keep in mind though, that when for example an American person has a surname with van in it (which occurs occasionally), it seems to be in caps no matter what. So the main question is which rules Wikipedia guidelines suggest are followed.
- Just my two cents, Skysmurf (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:ENGVAR, the article should be written using American english, because it "has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation" in this case the host country. ~DC Let's Vent 17:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
2010 FIFA World Cup squads
Thank you for fixing my edit. I seem to have forgotten about MOS:UNLINKDATES. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) 01:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
"cleanup"
Please stop using this as an edit summary. Twice I have seen you revert changes where the reason for the change was made clear, but you reverted and labelled it as 'cleanup', which implies the edits you were reverting were making a mess. If you dispute certain changes, make it clear in the summary. The first time [11] I saw this I AGF'd and assumed it was an edit conflict, as you make large changes in single edits, possibly offline. But the second time [12], it became clear what you were doing. I am fed up with edit warring with you, and I am fed up with your apparent attitude that the Peejay version is the correct version. If you don't start respecting other editors, I really am going to start paying attention to you properly, because I already think you have some serious attitude problems with regards football content and working with other editors, and that's just from a couple of casual observations. If this behaviour is more systematic, and it needs an Rfc and huge wads of evidence to change this, so be it. MickMacNee (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, not that I didn't know it already, but edit warring [13] is at least a massive part of your issues, which will certainly need addressing. I will yet again raise the issue on the talk page for you. MickMacNee (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Manchester United F.C
Hey PeeJay, hope you don't mind but I pinched a paragraph from your ownership of manchester united article for the main article. Problem is, I can't find any references for the Gibson ownership period, specifically when James died, Lilian took over ownership and Harold Hardman became chairman. Do you think this would be in any of the books you have? Thanks, Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi PeeJay. Just to let you know the reason I undid you referencing formatting was that I had gone through and formatted them in accordance with Brianboulton's FAC review, who has since looked at them and given them the all clear. I believe he is the resident reference expert. Best wishes, Tom Tomlock01 (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, well I haven't got a scooby when it comes to references so I really just did as I was told. I think the reasoning was that for well known websites and papers, a parent organisation is not necessary. The only reason I put 'publisher=BBC Sport' etc. was so that it wasn't in italics, because italics should only be used for print sources, and when I put 'work=BBC Sport', it italicised it. Tomlock01 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- RIghteo.Tomlock01 (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Tom, did you resolve the reference issue with Brian? Tom (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Tom I'm going to raise this issue on the discussion page and see what consensus is. Personally I think 'ManUtd.com (Manchester United)' and 'BBC Sport (British Broadcasting Corporation)' looks untidy, especially given that everyone knows what BBC stands for. Is that ok? Tom (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Cool. Just one point, in case you hadn't noticed there is a bit of inconsistency atm regards whether the publisher is in brackets. I was going to change it, but wasn't sure whether you had finished. Tom (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Another thing, if you're going to add back ManUtd.com, surely in the case of BBC sources, you should put BBC.com in there somewhere? And in the case of StretfordEnd.co.uk, the name of the website is 'The Website of Dreams'. Tom (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
So what is 'work' actually referring to then? Tom (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense to me. If its the publication it appeared in then fine, but in the case of ManUtd.com this would Manchester United Official Website, because this is the name of the 'department' of Manchester United that produced the article. Surely? Tom (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Right OK, so ManUtd.com is effectively the name of the official website. So in the case of StretfordEnd.co.uk, surely the 'The Website of Dreams' is correct. In that case, the 'work' would be 'The Website of Dreams' because this is the publication it appeared in, and the publisher would be Andrew Endlar? Tom (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- And why is the Premier League work 'premierleague.co.uk'? Tom (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
OK no sorry it is premierleague.com at the moment, but that isn't the name of the website, that is the URL. Same with StretfordEnd.co.uk. I get the point that in the case of ManUtd.com, that is the name of the publication, but this isn't the case for the premierleague.com. If premierleague.com is the name of the publication, then the name of the BBC publications should be BBC.com, surely? Tom (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Yer thats why I thought that just having 'BBC Sport' or 'Premier League', or 'Manchester United' was best, its nice and tidy, and its obvious what is intended, especially given there is a link to the website. In the case of the Premier League, its exactly the same as BBC in that at first glance, the title of the website is Premier League, and in the case of the BBC, the title of the website is BBC - thats what stands out when you first look at the homepage. Also the reality is that a website doesn't have to have a name does it? Tom (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I've changed all the refs to what I think is a good compromise. In the case of BBC sources, I've removed '(British Broadcasting Corporation)', because everyone knows what the BBC is, so its not necessary. Where it is less obvious, for example CBC, or RTE, I've left or added in the clarification in brackets. For ManUtd.com sources, I've moved 'ManUtd.com' into the publisher field, in addition to '(Manchester United)' so that 'ManUtd.com' is not italicised (because it is not a print source). For the premier league, I've removed 'premierleague.com', because this isn't the name of the website, and left it at 'Premier League'. I hope this is acceptable to you, and I'd appreciate it if you let me know if you intend to change it. Tom (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks mate. Tom (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Another thing, next time this article gets round to FAC, do you want to co-nominate it? Last time I was unaware you could do such a thing, but someone asked why you weren't a co-nom on the last FAC review (I don't know if you noticed?), which I guess makes sense. Tom (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Did you decide to go ahead with the "Manchester United Kits" article? I think its a good idea, and I'll happily help out. Tom (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh right ok. Once I've got all the history pages to FA (a mammoth task!), I might have a start if you haven't by then. Have you thought about doing a 'History of Manchester United in the F.A. Cup' like the Europe article? Tom (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Did you decide to go ahead with the "Manchester United Kits" article? I think its a good idea, and I'll happily help out. Tom (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Another thing, next time this article gets round to FAC, do you want to co-nominate it? Last time I was unaware you could do such a thing, but someone asked why you weren't a co-nom on the last FAC review (I don't know if you noticed?), which I guess makes sense. Tom (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks mate. Tom (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you look up a page number for this this discussion? Cheers, Tom (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Want to give Manchester United F.C. another shot at FAC now? Tom (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
WTF am I doing?
I'm removing youth transfers. If we're not bothering with League 1/2 transfers then why are bothering with youth transfers? Imlikeaboss (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
New MU Kit
Hi PeeJay, I have no idea how to do the kit illustration thing in the info box, but according to this source http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid={F9E570E6-407E-44BC-800F-4A3110258114}&newsid=6650712&page=1 shorts and socks will vary depending on the opponent, but red and black socks (as in currently in the info box) is not listed. Not sure how this could be reflected in the info box though. Tom (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh right ok. Shall we nominate it for FAC now or do you want to hold off? Tom (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yep I am. I think it will get through this time. I just need to add the references about Lilian Gibson, then I think its all done. I don't know how to co-nomiate an article though, so do you want to do it, or is it just as simple as saying 'me and PeeJay are nominating this'? Tom (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
. . .
A wikipedia article and a newborn baby is NOT a good comparison. Imlikeaboss (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm saying that a wikipedia article is not as important as a human being, silly. And in any case, I'm starting to add references to season pages. Imlikeaboss (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- IMO the sortname template is unnecessary. We've got these: [[ ]], so I don't see why we don't use those. It's easier to use the brackets. Imlikeaboss (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- So the sortname is so they sort by surname not first name? Imlikeaboss (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- IMO the sortname template is unnecessary. We've got these: [[ ]], so I don't see why we don't use those. It's easier to use the brackets. Imlikeaboss (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Transfers
Are you suggesting I wait, like, 2 or so years until these players are actually old enough to make their first team debuts before editing these links? Imlikeaboss (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
MANU
Hi, they don't always reply at copyright questions, if they don't reply User:Jappalang is very good with images, he helped me with File:Wales_Ireland_1950.png here. I noticed that FC United of Manchester use this badge as their own ... Fasach Nua (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Injury-time edits for World Cup 1994
Hi PeeJay. Yes, I was editing the times for the injury time goals. I was going to add links to the videos. You'll notice that sometimes there are differences between the official FIFA times and the times on Wikipedia (and certain other football-dedicated websites), and I'm not sure why that is. I was watching Youtube videos of the matches/goals in question and then applying the current practice of 45 or 90+however many minutes into injury time the goal was scored. I was planning on adding links to the videos, although perhaps the official notation showed 45 or 90 back in those days no matter how many minutes into injury time the goal was scored. These days injury time seems to be much more controlled than it used to be. If you watch this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mUzrgnCyrQ) you'll see how both of Nigeria's goals came in injury time for their respective halves. Anyway, not married to the concept of updating these scores to more accurately reflect the time the goal was scored if the official sports body is not doing so. Feelfreetoblameme (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Intercontinenal Cup points
The IC was decided on points at first. I am not sure when the format was changed but it is clear in the newspaper picture I gave you on the Old Trafford's talk page that goal aggregate was then taken into account first since at leat 1968. Jamen Somasu (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, to be honest it was just something I thought I'd try out. I agree it looks a bit silly, but I think thats because the club didn't play many games that season; I think in some of the more recent seasons it might be quite useful. Remove it you like, I won't be offended. Tom (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't just going to leave it at that. My intention was to eventually go through all the season articles and add a similar table to each of them. I just thought it could be quite a good way to compare overall performance between seasons. There is a similar table on the history of europe article, but I suppose thats collating results over a period of years...Tom (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Regards the table, yea if you think that would be a good idea. I'm happy to do it, may need a hand with the formatting if it doesn't turn out right though. Where do you think it would go best, or on both?
- Regards the featured topic, yer that was what I had in mind. Agree regards the history articles, I'll get started seriously on those when (or if!) the main article gets promoted. Tom (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK will do! Yer its looking good, what is this image copyright thing all about though? Does it really matter, I mean from the sounds it the question is simply whether the image can be used freely, so surely its irrelevant? Tom (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh for sure, I was just wondering whether it will hold up the nomination. I mean its already got six supports, how many does it need before its promoted? Tom (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh right ok in that case I'll start working on the history pages now, starting with the early history one. One thing, can you merge the three most recent articles? I know we discussed it a few weeks ago, but I have no idea how to do it. Tom (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK no worries, I assumed it was quite a quick task to merge articles, but obviously not! Can it be done just by copying and pasting info from one article into the other? Tom (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh right ok in that case I'll start working on the history pages now, starting with the early history one. One thing, can you merge the three most recent articles? I know we discussed it a few weeks ago, but I have no idea how to do it. Tom (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh for sure, I was just wondering whether it will hold up the nomination. I mean its already got six supports, how many does it need before its promoted? Tom (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK will do! Yer its looking good, what is this image copyright thing all about though? Does it really matter, I mean from the sounds it the question is simply whether the image can be used freely, so surely its irrelevant? Tom (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Tell me about it, this guy is absolutely unbelievable! Tom (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Warning
You have got to be kidding. Go for a walk. Have a beverage of your choice. Don't carry on like this or you'll end up with the same fate Jamen is heading for. And I mean it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- As an update, it turns out that if one is going to post video evidence to back up one's arguments, one should first check that it's not to a YouTube account registered in the name of another editor indeffed for warring and sockpuppetry last year... Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit conflict
Thanks for reverting my recent edit at Carlos Tévez, I was trying to remove the vandalism but was beaten to the punch and consequently returned the vandalism! I then tried to remove it again and you correctly deleted the vandalism. Thanks for the good work.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit war
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Gerard Piqué. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 15:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
H Cup finals
I merged the articles because they provided no more information than that contained in the rugbybox. Thus there is no justification for a separate stand alone article at this point in time. If detail is eventually added to the main articles, then the Final can be split again, but I see no reason why standalone articles are required at this stage. Cheers. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. That's why it is still there. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- There was nothing to the 2010 page that isn't already clear from the main article. As for the 2001 page, a few paragraphs of rather journalistic style prose does not warrant a separate article. To be honest, I don't really see the justification for separate articles for any of the finals, but the 2009 article seems to have sufficient content and sources. Unless the other articles are comparable to that standard, I don't see any logic for splitting the information from the main article. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- No. The point is that these articles have existed for over a year and provide no further information that that already included in the main articles. I suggest you tone down your attitude. I’m going through a load of rugby articles at the moment trying to bring them up to scratch and don’t need you accusing me of merging articles because “I can’t be bothered to expand them”. You want separate articles, then you put the work in and make them worthy of separate articles. As it is, there is simply no need for a standalone article when the same information can be provided in one place. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies if I misinterpreted your tone. However, making things better does not mean making more articles. It means improving those that we already have and deleting/merging others as appropriate. I’m sure in time sufficient material will be added that will warrant a split of the Finals into separate articles again. As I have repeatedly stated, there is no reason to split this information when it is already included in the main articles. Those separate articles simply consisted of a rugbybox template detailing the scores and a sentence summarising what the infobox already says – hardly worthy of a stand alone article, particularly when the very same information is duplicated in the main article. Further, I am not deleting anything, but simply moving it to a more appropriate location. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- No. The point is that these articles have existed for over a year and provide no further information that that already included in the main articles. I suggest you tone down your attitude. I’m going through a load of rugby articles at the moment trying to bring them up to scratch and don’t need you accusing me of merging articles because “I can’t be bothered to expand them”. You want separate articles, then you put the work in and make them worthy of separate articles. As it is, there is simply no need for a standalone article when the same information can be provided in one place. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- There was nothing to the 2010 page that isn't already clear from the main article. As for the 2001 page, a few paragraphs of rather journalistic style prose does not warrant a separate article. To be honest, I don't really see the justification for separate articles for any of the finals, but the 2009 article seems to have sufficient content and sources. Unless the other articles are comparable to that standard, I don't see any logic for splitting the information from the main article. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Question
You sure? Cos, the citation I put (slightly blogish I know) said "after winning the league title in 1955, the FA were asked if they would like to ...". I'm not really fussed but just wanted to check. Also weren't the League and Association much more similar entities back then than they are today? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fine, you seem much better versed at the issue than myself. Thanks for clarifying. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:2008 Heineken Cup Final programme.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:2008 Heineken Cup Final programme.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Roy Wegerle
The info you undid for making no sense was actually correct. Roy Wegerle played for Arcadia Shepherds 1980 & 1981. Then he played college soccer in Florida, before returning to Arcadia Shepherds sometime during the 1984-season. (I've seen the team photo.)
Greetings! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.155.203 (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hernandez #14
An I'm sure the clubs official store would sell t if it wasn't.
Go to http://www.tribalfootball.com/hernandez-take-no14-chicharito-man-utd-shirt-991411 then. or even http://store.manutd.com/stores/manutd/products/product_browse.aspx?free_text=chicharito and tell me. That IS his nickname and his number.
Hope you find this. On Man Utd's website, follow the megastore link and select one of the new tops to buy. On the right side where you can select a player name on the back you will find at the very bottom of the listings 'Chicharito 14' now available. Unfortunatly there isn't a way or linking from that directly as it only links to the megastore page rather than the shirt itself. User:Rj28 10:35, 22 July 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rj28sc (talk • contribs)
Man U players
I have completed the table here of the Man U player lists we discussed. It needs a few parts filling in, years may need to be altered (all taken from a source that only showed seasons that the players appeared rather than specific years) and positions altered. I don't think I have missed anyone out but please add them if I have. We can then work on the lead and sourcing. I have almost finished the table for 0-25 appearances as well in my userspace. Thanks. 03md 00:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Tom, Have you read the message above? Please can you respond. 03md 21:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. 03md 23:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Both Man U player articles are now in the mainspace and added to the template. I just have about 80 players to add to the fewer than 25 apps article, then we can check that the stats are accurate. 03md 00:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Bank St
Is there a particular reason why this isn't a featured article? What needs doing to get it to FA dya reckon? Tom (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there PJ, VASCO here,
regarding this player, i now explain my edits (i did it anon previously, sometimes i do, when i am "having ideas" and don't want to waste any time): unlike many MANY users at WP, i write summaries - sometimes a bit exaggerated i agree - and now, i elaborate on that after your reversion.
In storyline, it says clearly he played for Atlético Madrid B, i took the time to add it clearly in the text so that the box would be 100% clear. Hence, the full name in box is not needed, in my opinion, people will know to which club it is referring to. However, don't "fear", i will not revert it again, even though i don't agree with your approach.
Happy editing, keep it up, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Was really hoping for some discussion, some feedback on this. Don't worry, i'm getting used to being left hanging by the community (beats me why!). - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- (Thanks for the reply, mate!)Yes, totally see your logic there. As i said, even disagreeing, don't worry, i won't revert it. Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
George Nicol
Hello. I wish you wouldn't use the edit summary "cleanup" when what you actually mean is convert a perfectly tidy and MoS-compliant layout to one that you personally prefer. However, what I really came for was, do you have a source for Mr Nicol joining Saltcoats Victoria in 1927, and, if so, please could you add it to the article. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. I try really hard not to react to things that irritate me, but can't always stop myself... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hernandez and Smalling's numbers
Just want to let you know you should check the Man United online store, as you can purchase Javier Hernandez shirts with 14 and Chicharito on them. Smallings isn't official but Hernandez's is man.
- To add my view as well, I did just revert the change as I thought that talk page discussion was being ignored, until I searched out this discussion. He's got a point. The store IS selling Chicarito 14 shirts. The only problem is Daily Mail is a rag of a source and we can't presumably link to the official store for fear of advertising. Any idea on the next step? Paralympiakos (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- To be honest, I think it is official that he has been allocated the number 14 shirt, its just they haven't updated the squad section yet. The sun are also running a story today mentioning his squad number: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3063873/Javier-makes-big-name-for-himself.html
- I mean we could add his squad number in, with an additional source next to his name, but I think it would just be better that we wait until the club update the squad list. My two cents, anyway. Tom (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- The Club are fairly slow at updating the website. I think it took them about a month or two after Mame Biram Diouf made his debut to change his number. The same with happened with Obertan, Owen and Valencia and it was Sir Alex Ferguson who confirmed it.
If it was any other store advertising that Hernandez had number 14 then I would agree not to put it, but this is on the official site. They would get a pretty severe backlash if they chnaged it (despite the disclaimer). In my opinion the whole reason Man Utd have released his number early is for commercial reasons (sell shirts in Mexico). In previous years the club have waited an age to release the numbers; in 2007 it was only a couple of days before the charity shield that they confirmed the numbers of Hargreaves, Anderson and Tevez - I remember this as I went to the game and saw numerous people with Tevez 23 (he wore 32) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityharbour (talk • contribs) 08:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Dong
Hi, I read that article about Chinese naming practices, but I saw nothing in there that said we have to refer to Dong by his full name. He was the only player by that name in the China squad for the Olympics, so his surname should suffice. After all, this is the English Wikipedia and we should do things the same way the English-language media do. By the way, here is an example of only Dong's surname being put on his shirt. – PeeJay 08:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Anyway, you just see the shirt names of Chinese, Koreans and Hongkonger in FIFA. Or read the templates of chinese clubs or koreans clubs. If you are in China or Korea, no body will call other people by surname. Are you lived in these country?? Hoising (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I lived in Singapore for 7 years, that's close enough. Anyway, I can tell this conversation is going to be futile, since you're obviously going to be as obdurate about this as you were with the Dutch names issue. – PeeJay 08:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Singapore ... LOL. Look at Singapore national football team, most people take his surname for shirt name since there are not chinese characters! Look at the templates:
|  | |
this is the only method to identify Chinese people. Hoising (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- But Dong DOES NOT NEED QUALIFYING. He is the only one with that name in the squad, so there is NO NEED to put his given name. – PeeJay 09:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- In this Olympic match in 7 August 2008, You can see the Z. for Zhuo in Dong Fangzhuo. Please respect all Chinese people. Don't take this as a joke. Hoising (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Squad tables and flags
Hi Peejay, just to let you know that I've asked Chris at User_talk:Thumperward#New squad table to come up with a new squad table that incorporates the flag and the country name in some sensible and aesthetically pleasing way. If we can come up with something suitable, it could be worth trying out in the Manchester United article, which would solve any worries the reviewers have about MOS compliance. If it's successfully used there, we could use it as a prototype for a template that we could use for all articles. Let me know what you think, Knepflerle (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
you shouldn't have done
you shouldn't have done what you did to the Australia vs Pakistan in England page as the flags are needed. You will be banned. Jeff79 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.189.79 (talk) 06:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Not vandalism
Revisions I've made were not vandalism. Look at the pages where you undid my revisions.-Galmicmi (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Answer
You asked the question; "Why do Robinho and Jo have their full names here?" with regards to 2010–11 Manchester City F.C. season#Squad statistics. This might explain. I would have reverted but I believe this user would continue to ignore useful advice, argue and war, as they reverted twice. They may try again when they have full edit status to the main article. May I also draw your attention to the unreferenced squad numbers of 12 and 43. His source is here. I'm not convinced as it's pre-season and not verifiable anywhere else. The only valid source is here. Feel free to act on these as you see fit, I feel too involved. Thanks. gonads3 21:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks the feedback. All the best for the upcoming season. gonads3 21:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
1966 World Cup
Absolutely. I'm going to have a cup of coffee now. Britmax (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Flags
I errored today and attempted to fix your edit, but missed the flag references as they seemed to work. Apologies. Are you aware of this. Seems all three options work correctly, but due respect to consistency. Thanks. gonads3 16:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Man U
Haha yea sorry my bad, didn't realise I was cutting and pasting the wrong article! I'll try again; at least then I'll know how to do it in the future. Tom (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Will do. When I paste this: #REDIRECT PAGENAME {{R from merge}} into the 1986-99 article (after deleting all content), do I put the page name of the 1986-99 article, or the 1999-present article? Tom (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry didn't make it clear, I think I've done it right. Tom (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Cool. Now to get my shears out and give it a good trim. Tom (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry didn't make it clear, I think I've done it right. Tom (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I thought we'd never get there.Tom (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yea so featured topic, what do you propose would go into it? Tom (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Teamwork
Hi there PJ, VASCO here,
Hope you liked my changes/additions in Paul McGrath: this great "Red Villain" deserves nothing more than that, a great article. Found refs for a lot of pertinent info, even for that bit about fans singing "Kumbaya": was about to leave it unref'd, then browsed the web one final time, got it ;) !! Duly noted you because i know your like to keep you ManU players "nice and clean"...
Off to bed now, keep up the good work man, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Quite (at least a bit) strange: after at least TWO YEARS unnoticed, after all my hard work, an entire chunk of storyline (10, 15 lines) was removed in "INT.CAREER" by User:Britmax (i have also sent him a message). I admit, even without having written it, that it was a bit sensationalistic, but removed the bit altogether? I bit drastic, i reinstated/rephrased it.
Thanks for your kind words, glad you liked my input. Later! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Attitude
Whenever I've edited a Manchester United player it's always just you who seems to chop and change it, you think your edits seem to be the best quality!? When most of the time you just add a sentence or change it around for no reason just to satisfy yourself? Healy6991 14:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough but editing and moving around everything involved with Manchester United is quite boring and annoying. I'm a massive United fan and change things when it looks bad etc. but you just seem to change it to your demands whether it needs it or not. Let's work together then mate Healy6991 14:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Time is linear
I can only write down my thoughts after the have run through my brain, and as I do not have the ability to stop time there would be a small lag between placing a tag and validating it.The Infoboxer (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I would imagine there is a fair bit of hate in you. The Infoboxer (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I do, but there was very little reason for you to leave a snide message on my page given that no article was created. Whether it was meant to be a snidey comment or not, that is how it came across, and the only benefit of you leaving the message would be to satisfy yourself, and not to promote wikipedia in any way. I have already garnered an understanding of the crystal-ball policy, and to say that you did not deserve some sort of minor response is frankly false on your part. I for my part shall leave it there, leaving you to get on with your editing and hope that you will do the same for me. The Infoboxer (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Okay then, we'll take it that we've both misunderstood each other. I have no issue with yourself either. The Infoboxer (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I do, but there was very little reason for you to leave a snide message on my page given that no article was created. Whether it was meant to be a snidey comment or not, that is how it came across, and the only benefit of you leaving the message would be to satisfy yourself, and not to promote wikipedia in any way. I have already garnered an understanding of the crystal-ball policy, and to say that you did not deserve some sort of minor response is frankly false on your part. I for my part shall leave it there, leaving you to get on with your editing and hope that you will do the same for me. The Infoboxer (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey PeeJay. Just noted your changes to the above template. I support your work as ever, and hopefully we know each other well enough by now that I can open up to you like this without fear of you taking this the wrong way, but I have to admit (no slight against you) that I find the new predilection for removing all linebreaks in season templates absolutely hideous. It makes the template far, far harder to navigate and doesn't really save on template length due to the small amount of code saved nor space taken up in articles since the infobox now starts collapsed and has to be expanded to be read. All in all, the previous style with the rows neatly laid out by decade is far, far preferable to my eyes. In fact I'm half-tempted to design a new template just for City, using the general style of Template:Manchester City F.C. with the decades replacing the subtitles down the left, purely to present a better option. Must we have City's season box made to follow the norm? Frankly I can't say I like it at all, and I'm tempted to fight for my right to keep City's having style over simplicity. WP:BOLD and all that, you know? Falastur2 Talk 23:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Of course not. Now that I fully support you on. Thanks for the swift reply as ever. Falastur2 Talk 23:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Jack Allan dob
Hi PeeJay2K3
You've added some months ago January, 16th as dob of Jack Allan. Can you tell me your source, cause I cant find a detailled dob in my books (Dykes: The United Alphabet (January qtr.), Joyce FL Players' Records (February)).
Greetz --Ureinwohner (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Anderson
Hey PeeJay2K3, just for reference it does appear that the "rvv" you did on Anderson might actually be accurate. I've added a current tag and made comments on the talk page. Obviously, the article needs to be cited etc still but while the tag is in place there will probably be a large amounts of edits for the next few hours. Just letting you know since you clearly follow the articles closely relating to Man Utd. Pursey Talk | Contribs 22:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just following up, I will be adding sources. The tag isn't there so we can add uncited sources, but so we can track the changes easily and easily refer back to the point where the news reports started coming in. If anything, it'll simply make our "job" easier. Feel free to remove the tag in a couple of hours if no one can source/cite. Pursey Talk | Contribs 22:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Not a cricket fan
You are not a cricket fan, but still seem to be very concerned about the 2010-11 Ashes series?--Karyasuman (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm........but your profile surely ignores cricket to a great extent. I reckon, by seeing your profile, no one would think you are a cricket fan. Maybe along with Rugby, you should write cricket too.--Karyasuman (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Charity Shield
Yeah, you're right. I guess I tend to block Man Utd's title wins from my mind. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Request for comment.
Hey PJ, would you be willing to offer a neutral view on this? I appreciate your allegiances are on the other side of the road, so to speak, but I've found you to be fair. Thanks. gonads3 17:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Reversion of edit 372604741 on Dafydd Jones page
Just quering the regression of my edit on Dafydd's positon - he plays blind side or open side flanker - (6 or 7) if you look at some of the recent lineups you'll see he plays that position - if you check his logo and his testimonial match book you'll see his logo includes a number 6 in it. Kevin svek (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I never claimed that there was another player in the International with nickname "Pato" before Alexandre. I said that there are professional players in world football - mainly Brazilian and Argentine footballers nicknamed Pato (Duck) -, and who is guided by wikipedia and do not know the history of the club or do not know anything about football may be confused. Here I want to qualify the information of the article and not confuse readers. Therefore, the reference to Alexandre Pato (reiterating, as he is better known worldwide) is more descriptive than just the word Pato, which may allude to another player with the same nickname and coincidentally is playing in the same club, although in different times.
Evandro Davis (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
p.s.: Although we are always learning about everything, about your statement "In Fact, there were no other named Pato with international footballers at the 2006 Club World Cup", I can comment that I know that, about the history and present of Brazilian's football and mainly the Gaucho' football (from Rio Grande do Sul state) and even more about the International's history I'm very close.
Help?
Hey PJ. Could I trouble you for a view on this? Again I valuable your opinion. I promise to leave a larger gap between requests in future. Thanks. gonads3 17:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
List of Man United players
Are you sure that United moved to Old Trafford in 1910? Article Manchester United F.C. says In 1909, the club moved to its current home, Old Trafford, the third-largest football ground in the United Kingdom.. PS. (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Sylvan Ebanks-Blake
It could well be an error (which I hope they've done for Heskey, for his sake...), but what matters is it being cited by a RS; verifiability over truth and all that jazz. I imagine there may well be a RS that supports "Augustus", so it being changed isn't really a problem. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Logos on kit graphics
I've noticed you have been following Bruno-ban's steps with all the kit graphics he's been adding. What is the final word on this, are graphics allowed or not? And where is this clearly stated either way? MattM4 (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Requesting your opinion
Hey PeeJay. I was wondering if I could consult you on a little matter I've been discussing for some time with MLITH and though the matter is drawing to a close, I wanted to see if I could consult a few "expert opinions". You can, by all means, read through the extensive debate we've had here - it also spills onto the rest of my talk page and on bits of his - but to summarise to save you time, we're discussing the squad stats section of the City season article here and who should be included. I made the point that - citing Matias Vuoso as a prime example - first team squad members who are given no appearances should be included on the table because they deserve to be there - not being included in the squads doesn't change the fact that they were part of the team and eligible for selection. MLITH countered that players with no appearances are uncitable (something I disagree with) and including them leaves open the possibility for youths who are on the brink of call-up to possibly be included on the table but not actually make it into the first team and not deserve to be there. In essence, that is to say that his argument is that allowing one player with no appearances to be included allows for the possibility of any player to be added, and went as far as suggesting that he could even feasibly add himself to the table and argue that he has just as much right to be there as someone with no appearances as Matias Vuoso. Personally I reject his philosophy, but I understand the point, and while he's argued me to the point where I'm willing to concede the point as I don't think it's worth arguing to this degree, I wanted to just play one final card by consulting others with more rounded opinions than myself - being yourself and Oldelpaso. I want to make it clear, by the way: I'm not inviting you to comment to try to win the argument. You may well disagree with me - I'd admit that my argument is flawed though not necessarily wrong - and if your decision is that you favour MLITH's view then I will accept it just as happily as if you agree with me. Furthermore, your decision isn't necessarily a debate-winning or -ending statement; I'm not seeking your decision to end the talks, merely to see whether my views are wide of popular opinion - not least because MLITH has accused me of being arbitrary and focused on my own opinions, and though I didn't find it a very politic thing to say I find it hard to disagree with him - I am arbitrary. Anyway, if you'd be willing to leave your impressions, be it a one sentence "I agree with Falastur/MLITH" or a detailed analysis, your advice would be very welcome. As I say, really all I want here is to see whether I really am allowing my personal feelings to cloud my judgement, or if actually I have a decent point. Any detail you can give would be appreciated but the important thing for me is what opinion you favour.
Also, since I'm here, I saw the Premier League table for today since the games and noticed with some slight disgust that someone has made it so that teams are in equal position. Personally I don't believe in such a thing as "City and Spurs are in joint 8th" place. Either you're in 8th place or you're beneath it, even if the deciding factor is alphabetical order. However, the situation won't last more than a few weeks and I wanted to check whether reverting that decision (I'm sure I've seen it argued away before on the PL article but I can't find where so I can't cite it) would be unpopular and controversial/wrong, or whether you actually agree with me. Right now I'm not quite in the mood for making slapdash edits which could provoke a response, so I'm not just going to leap before I look here.
Anyway, thanks for your time. Please don't feel obliged to read the entire debate (concerning the squad stats, not the PL table) because it will take you some considerable amount of time, but any impressions you can give would be very appreciated by myself at least. For the record, I will be repeating this entire passage on Oldelpaso's talkspace so if you are the second to comment you might be interested to see his response too. Thanks again. Falastur2 Talk 20:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. Forgot to add. We're currently planning on rolling out a slightly new template for the stats which will list which players have been selected for the PL and UEFA 25-man squads - this will obviously affect the concept of a player being included and not receiving any team caps, as strong arguments could be made for the inclusion of players who are on those squads but aren't given games - for the sake of completeness if nothing else, for example. This relies on the 25-man squads being researchable, of course - sometimes clubs just don't tell you who's on the list. Thus, you might want to consider the above example a theoretical example as the chance of players being first team and yet not making either squad is now far less likely than the previous possibility of a player being in the first team and just not getting games (Vuoso). Still, the possibility could occur, and there are potential implications for such circumstances as players removed from the 25-man squads in January etc, so it'd still be good to hear your thoughts.
- Edited the previous post to fix the link over to the pertinent discussion on this topic. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 00:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Lists of national team footballers
Hi, I would welcome any views you have on [14]. If so, please post there. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
flags in nft infoboxes
I think I've exhausted my willingness to do this: did all of CAF, CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, OFC and most of AFC 4th-10th of this month. Kevin McE (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've finished the UEFA countries (and a few others) too.. JMHamo (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
So you accuse me of having a 'religous agenda' : User talk:Off2riorob/Archive 8#Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it.
Strange, I thought you were supposed to treat each contributor with respect for their beliefs and contributions. Must be my mistake. Enjoy your militant atheism. ☘HappyDude The Mad Tim☘ craic 23:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Vikings roster
I was just reminding you. I was trying to be funny. If I offended you, I'm sorry. RevanFan (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah. I just HATE using things like "lol" and "lmao". RevanFan (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Dafydd James
Please stop editing Dafydd James' page with information he chooses not to have on his page. I represent him, and if this continues I will be putting in a formal complaint to Wikipedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emsylew (talk • contribs) 10:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Watch out
If you muck up football group articles again I will report to vandalism. Luckily, I have, so you will be blocked for vandalism and your unhelpful edits will be revert as obvious vandalism. Velociraptor888 07:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
You may like to read this comment. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- ^ http://www.vfb.de/en/saison/vfb/cl/gruppen/2009/1.php
- ^ http://www.vfb.de/de/mercedes_benz_arena/webcam/
- ^ http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=788180&sec=england&root=england&cc=5901.
{{cite news}}: Missing or empty|title=(help) - ^ http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/785987/ce/uk/?cc=5901&ver=us.
{{cite news}}: Missing or empty|title=(help)