User talk:PeeJay

Preseason game summaries

Stop reverting my edits without a discussion. It is your responsibility as the editor seeking inclusion of disputed content to start a discussion, not mine. I will not be sucked into an edit war because you would rather revert twice instead of starting a discussion. Start the discussion yourself at WT:NFL to get a consensus for inclusion of preseason game summaries. Because once again that is your responsibility.--Rockchalk717 18:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

That content has not been disputed in similar articles for years, why suddenly come along and remove it now? – PeeJay 18:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm just gonna let this go. I don't have any good argument against inclusion other than we don't usually include it. All I'll ask is you consider adding it to the other 28 team articles too if you have the time.--Rockchalk717 18:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Manchester United Badge 1960s-1973.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Manchester United Badge 1960s-1973.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Rashford honours

Hello hope you’re having a good day, I would like to ask why you feel Rashfords Europa league and Super cup defeats shouldn’t be in the honours section? He may not of won those finals but it is still an honour due to him receiving a medal for it, other players on their honours section also include defeats. Elliotstone25 (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Coming second is not an honour. – PeeJay 07:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

He is given a medal therefore it is an honour. Elliotstone25 (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. He didn't win the competition, therefore it isn't an honour. – PeeJay 12:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Other players on their honour section have had runners up put in, it’s still an achievement to get in the final no matter the result. The section is titled honours not trophy wins, you get a medal for getting to the final therefore it is an honour Elliotstone25 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

An honour is, by definition, when you win a trophy. I don't think that's ever changed. If a player is on a team that comes second or third in a competition, by all means mention that in the article prose, but it's not an honour. – PeeJay 18:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
336		Treviso (talk)	Add sources
875		Scotland national rugby union team (talk)	Add sources
5,541		Pakistan national cricket team (talk)	Add sources
576		Melbourne Football Club (talk)	Add sources
78		Tamil Thalaivas (talk)	Add sources
1,740		One Day International (talk)	Add sources
88		Rochak Kohli (talk)	Cleanup
53		History of the West Indies cricket team (talk)	Cleanup
25		Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Madras and Mylapore (talk)	Cleanup
1,603		Bangladesh national cricket team (talk)	Expand
3		Los Angeles Amazons (talk)	Expand
64		Friday Filmworks (talk)	Expand
6,648		Sachin Tendulkar (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
2,187		Scott Cawthon (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
123		Kasparov versus the World (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
529		INOX Leisure (talk)	Merge
1,667		PVR INOX Limited (talk)	Merge
599		Philip Larkin (talk)	Merge
37		CS Minaur Baia Mare (football) (talk)	Wikify
6		Bahram Jung Mosque (talk)	Wikify
47		2021–22 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round (talk)	Wikify
29		FC Twente in European football (talk)	Orphan
3		V. Balan (talk)	Orphan
7		Ahiwasi (talk)	Orphan
17		Tirusoolanathar Temple (talk)	Stub
2		Marius Dănilă (talk)	Stub
2		Radoslav Komitov (talk)	Stub
82		Tony Franken (talk)	Stub
4		Ionuț Balaban (talk)	Stub
159		Jens Fjellström (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Jonny Evans

Evans has been on the squad page of the ManUtd web with number 27 for sometime and you keep removing the number. What's your beed when United clearly gives him 27 in the squad? Jellybeard (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

As I’ve explained multiple times to multiple people, Jonny Evans is currently only on a short-term contract with United. His squad number was only valid for pre-season, and pre-season numbers are not official. Hope that helps. – PeeJay 13:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Except that's the number they registered with the premier league! :/ Govvy (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced he's actually been registered. Officially, he's not even under contract at Manchester United right now. – PeeJay 12:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

He has to have some sort of contract otherwise the club would be breaking FA rules. Regards. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

What FA rules do you think they've broken? – PeeJay 12:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

He would have to fill in some forms under contract, be it G1, G2, G3 forms to register with the FA in order to play, then after that's done, Man U can submit player number. To have that number he would need to have an underlining contract. Per regulation; Clubs must enter into a written contract of employment with their Players on the relevant form approved by The Association. That is the rules set by the Football Association. Regards. Govvy (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Lol, I know all that. That's why I'm saying I don't think he has a number. He's not under contract, so none of that applies. They're working on getting him one, but if he's not under contract, he can't be registered, he doesn't have a number and the Man Utd and Premier League websites are therefore wrong. – PeeJay 13:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

What ever you say bud! But even Man United website he joined on a short term contract! :/ [1] Govvy (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a contract that expired already! – PeeJay 14:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Template: Match Report

Hi PeeJay, regarding your removal of the flag icon from {{Match report}}.

We've had this conversation before. You remained firmly opposed then, and I pointed out your opposition to imagery on match reports was unsupported at the time, and I have yet to see any change in this consensus. You cannot unilaterally decide that something cannot be on a template, especially an under construction one. If you disagree with what I've created there, then by all means seek consensus, but edit warring, and to be frank, coming back months after a discussion just to try and edit it to your preference is not the way to go about changing it. Appreciate the opportunity to discuss and seek consensus. El Dubs (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Except there's no need to use the flag. MOS:DECOR is quite clear about icons (particularly flag icons) not being used for decorative purposes. That's clearly the only reason you would add a flag in that position in that template, since any relevant flag would have already appeared further up. Hope that helps clear things up for you. This isn't about my preference, it's about Wikipedia policy. – PeeJay 07:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

MOS:DECOR doesn't apply here as it's not a decorative use. It creates a much clearer visual cue to go along with the text of the country name, just as it does with the smaller version of the flag next to country names. It meets a useful purpose. In this instance, you've incorrectly applied a wikipedia "guideline", not a policy. If you disagree, please seek consensus. I'm happy to follow a consensus if others agree with you. El Dubs (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

If the flag already appears next to the country names, what possible use could it actually serve further down the template? It's totally not necessary. If you want to include the flag, you should seek your own consensus to do so. Provide a compelling reason, because the one you've provided already is inadequate. – PeeJay 09:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll hold off your edit war for a moment to give you a chance to explain your actions. It's really not up to you to decide what is or isn't necessary. You're welcome to make a case, but if that is disagreed with, then it is on you to find a consensus since you are the one wanting to make a change to the template. As the thing you're attempting to change was already on that work-in-progress template, then the onus on consensus for change is on you. I'm aware you have a history of wanting flags removed because you think they violate MOS:ICON, but it appears you're just trying to brute force your decision on things. Going so far as to go back to a change you were unsuccessful with months back, just to try it again. I believe this is poor form on your part. Please seek actual consensus on the change you wish to make. If I wish to apply this template to pages where such a flag is not the form, please rest assured at that moment I will seek consensus for a change. But you are editing a template used by no page, that is purely work in progress. For that reason, I didn't need consensus to initially include it. If you want to change that, by all means, find others to agree with you. El Dubs (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The template is clearly being created with the intent of being used on pages. If it weren't, I could argue for it to be deleted based on criterion 3 listed at WP:TFD#REASONS. Regardless, there is tacit consensus for my position given that this template is obviously being designed to reflect existing practices on rugby union articles, and none of those include flags in the position you're attempting to insert them. We should also follow the example of similar sports, such as football, which also don't include flags in that position (and haven't for approximately 15 years) because it's a violation of MOS:DECOR. I don't just remove flags because I "think" they violate MOS:ICON, I remove them because they do violate MOS:ICON. Sorry you can't see that. – PeeJay 09:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Guidelines are tools, not rules. They're there to assist us, not constrain us. Relying on them in a dogmatic manner, as you appear to be doing, verges on WP:LAWYERING. Therefore, I consider your references to "violations" to be suggestions for improvement rather than definitive judgments.

Regarding MOS:DECOR, it's my contention that the flag icons are not merely decorative but serve a functional purpose. They enhance readability and visual association, especially in a sports context. You're welcome to disagree, but that doesn't make your interpretation the definitive one. For that, we need community consensus.

As for MOS:ICON, I believe that the flags fulfill an encyclopedic function by emphasising the inherent connection between sports teams and their respective countries.

Having a larger title for each country makes it appropriate, in my opinion, to place the flag next to that title. I argue that this visual cue may be as recognizable—if not more so—than the country names themselves.

I respect that you have a different view. However, it's crucial to note that you're promoting your interpretation as if it were a fixed Wikipedia rule, which it is not.

In regards to your implication that the template somehow violates an unwritten consensus because other match reports don't use large flags:

Enforcing a past consensus on a work-in-progress not only hinders innovation but also limits its potential for refinement and improvement. You're welcome to offer your contributions to enhance the template; however, given its formative state, discussions about consensus should be restricted to this specific template and not be influenced by existing practices on other pages.

Scope is essential when considering consensus. For a template that is currently under development and not yet applied elsewhere, it's appropriate to confine the consensus discussion to the template's own page, ensuring it doesn't pre-emptively conform to established norms. Once template is attempted to be used on other pages, then it's appropriate to widen the scope of consensus before applying the template to existing match reports.

Imposing a previous consensus on a work-in-progress stifles innovation and restricts its potential for improvement, as does your use of guidelines as policies. Feel free to contribute to the template as you see fit. However, since the template is still in a formative stage, any discussions of consensus should be made on their own merit, not assumed based on prior consensus.

Given that we disagree on the template's current form, and since you are advocating for a change, the responsibility to seek community consensus for that alteration lies with you within the scope of the template page itself. El Dubs (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You're right, guidelines are tools. However, they exist to ensure a level of uniformity and professionalism across Wikipedia. You would have to have a very good reason to ignore them, and I don't think you do. I suggest you find a consensus for such an inclusion. Cheers. – PeeJay 11:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I have not ignored the MOS, I have simply interpreted it differently to you. You have made the change. This puts the onus for consensus on you. I see no reason to go out and get consensus to keep your change. El Dubs (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Then I guess you're not going to find any consensus to ever implement the template. Your innovation is not being hindered here. You are quite welcome to seek a consensus to deviate from past practices by presenting your idea to the community, but do it from a sandbox. – PeeJay 11:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe consensus will be achieved, maybe it won't. But in the meantime, if you wish for this work in progress to not have large flags, seek consensus for that change. El Dubs (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You've still not provided any good reason to include them. Flags are already included in the {{rugbybox}} section, and there's no need to include oversized ones on the screen at the same time when the kits serve the purpose you described: demarcating the {{rugbybox}} section from the line-ups section. Why are you so obsessed with flags? – PeeJay 11:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Bringing up a good reason to include them will be a brilliant thing to bring up when you seek consensus for your change. Reverting until the other person gives up, or trying to shift the onus of consensus for change is not the way to get what you want. El Dubs (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. If you want to include the flags against the existing consenus for rugby articles, the onus is on you to initiate that discussion as you did here. I look forward to hearing from you at WT:RU. – PeeJay 12:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You're right, if I want to include these flags on any rugby articles, I will seek consensus. You can certainly look forward to my eventual discussion on the matter.

If you wish to remove them on a work in progress template that isn't used on any rugby articles however, you will need to seek consensus. El Dubs (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Works in progress, especially those not in your own userspace, are not your own personal projects. As I said before, this template is obviously being designed with the intent of being used in articles at some point; if you wish to include things in this template, now is the time to seek that consensus. Please do so at your earliest convenience, should you wish to continue working on this template. – PeeJay 12:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I've expressed a willingness to engage the community, which debunks your suggestions of "personal projects". It's you that refuses to engage with the community, and instead you resort to unilaterally deciding what can be on pages and instead of seeking consensus for your changes, you revert until the issue goes away. Is it your intention to just revert this until you have imposed your views? El Dubs (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It is my intention that you seek a consensus for the structure and content of this template. Instead of having this conversation, you could have just opened a discussion at WT:RU. The appetite for this template to be created was always lukewarm at best, so I can see why you wouldn't want to open a discussion now. You went months without editing the template, so why resurrect it now? – PeeJay 12:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Consensus achieved. While you opposed the template, myself and one other supported it. Wouldn't want to open a discussion? I already did.

Before you try. Consensus doesn't require specific numbers, it doesn't require a vote, it doesn't require a recent decision. I would still seek consensus before applying the template to match reports. But... to make a change to the actual template after a discussion has occurred, means you are the one that needs to start a discussion and achieve a new consensus.

You're right I went months without editing the template (luckily wikipedia supports not having a deadline). But you went years. I edited 2021-09-07, and you came back in 2023-02-07 to "resurrect" the template to make a change that you were unsuccessful at changing the first time.

In a way, the resurrection of this template is all thanks to you coming back to edit it. So if you want to change it, back that up and start a discussion to replace the previous discussion. El Dubs (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Consensus may not require specific numbers, but if you think three people constitute a consensus, you're deluded. – PeeJay 13:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

If you don't like the engagement on the previous discussion, start a new one. I did my job, had a discussion, you were outnumbered. It should be easy for you to get a stronger consensus. It's not my job to fulfil your personal requirements for number of people. El Dubs (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I was outnumbered? I thought you said consensus didn't depend on numbers. You're arguing in circles and it's making you look silly. – PeeJay 13:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Tell me, what requirements do I need to fulfil in order for you to stop trying to force your change? A second discussion on the matter that I have to start? A consensus of 3:1? 4:1? How many people do you deem acceptable to consider it a consensus? Or is it not about people but the level of majority? Would you reject 50:49? Do you need a specific gap? If you consider that a consensus goes against MOS, will you ignore it?

It's essential that I gather when you will allow something to happen, because if I don't meet your criteria, you've made it clear you will continue to revert any change until those criteria are met. I see the first criteria you've made is:

• A consensus of three people is not a consensus.

I mean, I couldn't find that on WP:CON, so I assume it's your rule. I've noted your rule, but I need more details if you're to allow me to edit the page and not just revert it. El Dubs (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Considering the last discussion was two years ago, I'd advise having another one to gauge the community's opinion. WP:RU has hundreds of members (IIRC); a two-year-old discussion with three respondents is hardly a foundation for anything in 2023. – PeeJay 22:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Could you perhaps direct me to the policy that states consensus expires? Or is this to be added to the list of "PeeJay's rules" along with how many people you think is adequate for consensus? El Dubs (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. But of course I don't accept that you had a consensus in the first place. – PeeJay 07:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can change indeed, but as you can clearly read from the link, it isn't assumed to have changed by default.

Wikipedia does not require that you "accept" consensus. Wikipedia is not yours, so we don't base consensus around what you accept. If you disagree witb prior consensus, then gather a new, stronger one. Don't try to brute force your will.El Dubs (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I never claimed Wikipedia was mine, but I think it would be prudent of you to seek further opinions. I also never claimed I don’t accept consensuses, I just don’t think the previous discussion ever reached one. Please don’t put words in my mouth. Again, instead of engaging in this unproductive dialogue, you could have spent time actually trying to improve the template or canvassing for people to accept its use in articles. But instead you decided to piss and moan about two useless flags on my talk page. – PeeJay 11:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I support those flags, so I'm hardly going to moan about them. The only one moaning about them is you. So instead of doing that, take your own advice and go seek consensus for your opinion. As you say, it would be more productive. El Dubs (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

You're moaning about their removal, and I'm sure you know that's what I meant. Don't be a smartarse. No one else has any opinion on them at all because no one even knows the template exists. So why don't you go tell people about it instead of bothering me? – PeeJay 12:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I already have. It's on you now. Stop trying to hold pages hostage until your demands are met. El Dubs (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I couldn’t care less if your template ever gets used. But if you’re not planning on getting people to support its use in actual articles, it should probably be deleted. I’ll pop over to WP:TfD soon. – PeeJay 17:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Whether it's used or not isn't the issue raised here. By all means start a discussion on the matter, that's great. The issue is that you're deciding what is and isn't consensus and have decided that your consensus of 1 person (you) is enough to remove content from a template even though it's opposed. It's very simple. The previous consensus was 2:1, if you wish to change that, then get a new consensus.

Whether a new consensus or a TfD, I look forward to whatever discussion you bring up. El Dubs (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Skeene88 said they liked the template, but then didn’t comment again. That is not a consensus for anything, just that they liked it. I raised multiple important objections, you fixed one and then nothing happened. As far as I’m concerned, the template is dead and buried. That was seemingly your opinion as well for the last two years, and all you’ve done for the last two days is revert my removal of two unnecessary flags and then complain on this page. Frankly, you’re getting tiresome. – PeeJay 21:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Now for consensus, you want comments to contain certain things, and you want the person to comment again. You're being unreasonable.

If this is tiresome... why don't you just start a discussion and get a consensus? That would solve this. El Dubs (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Or I could just find a way to stop you posting on my talk page and treat the template (and each other) exactly as we did for the last 2 years… completely non-existent. – PeeJay 21:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh by all means, I'm not here to harrass you. My apologies if you feel otherwise. I will simply stop responding if that's your wish. I've just been responding to you because I feel your expectation that I be the one to go get a new consensus for your benefit was wrong. I'll cease responding from now on this topic unless you ask anything of me.

Sincerely, while I disagree with your actions here, it doesn't change that I appreciate the tremendous contributions you make to Rugby Union on Wikipedia. So I hope you have a good day. El Dubs (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

You too mate, have a good one. – PeeJay 22:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Your reverting the Player sold or on loan after the season started part...

What is your issue with the bottom rows of players listed that were out on loan or sold since the season started? This is much more detailed and clearer then keeping the players that left in the same list of players still at the club. Many football season pages administer this the same way. Just reverting all the time what I did edit with a not " No thank you" is not right. You discuss something that bothers you and give us facts why you think this is unnecessary. Being a dictaror and always editing/reverting what other people add is not the right way. You seem to be doing that all the time. Jellybeard (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Why not just list them in numerical order? Readers can see those players left the club from the "Transfers" section below. – PeeJay 13:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

So twice an 11, twice a number 3 if later on we buy someone who get 3? Tell me why there are so many pages who move the players that left during the season to the bottom of the page? If you really like to see them numbered, you can add a sort function per column and you can sort by number for yourself.

Seeing who's still at the club or not in the same table is directly very obvious and clear without needing to scroll down to check. People look at the stats mostly every week. Jellybeard (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but would you mind going back and changing all of the tables for the last few years? It would be nice to at least get a bit of consistency in the Man Utd season article series. – PeeJay 14:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
148		Continental football championships (talk)	Add sources
12		Red Issue (talk)	Add sources
195		Soccer Saturday (talk)	Add sources
113		Football in Portugal (talk)	Add sources
1,279		Fiji national rugby union team (talk)	Add sources
5		EuroCup 3 (talk)	Add sources
239		Lyndon Dykes (talk)	Cleanup
97		Super cup (talk)	Cleanup
356		Zorbing (talk)	Cleanup
7		Independent Manchester United Supporters Association (talk)	Expand
240		Bwin (talk)	Expand
2,003		Luke Shaw (talk)	Expand
33		Mike Ross (rugby union) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
530		COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
46		Premier League–Football League gulf (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
74		SVNS (talk)	Merge
42		De Passe Entertainment (talk)	Merge
27		Dilsia (slave) (talk)	Merge
1,298		Matt Smith (footballer, born 1989) (talk)	Wikify
11		2012 Portland Timbers season (talk)	Wikify
6		Third Sector (magazine) (talk)	Wikify
1		Duane Goodfield (talk)	Orphan
2		Ann Minnick (talk)	Orphan
3		Ariyathur (talk)	Orphan
12		Catarina Amado (talk)	Stub
7		We All Follow Man United (talk)	Stub
6		We're Gonna Do It Again (talk)	Stub
24		The Crow: Original Motion Picture Score (talk)	Stub
3		2020–21 Ethiopian Premier League (talk)	Stub
6		Lift it High (All About Belief) (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Carlos Queiroz

your article suggests that Carlos Queiroz is also Mozambican, which is totally false!

Furthermore, I find it scandalous that on the English Wikipedia, the country of birth is highlighted. A nationality is also obtained by “blood law”. Do you find it normal that it is not indicated that Anthony Lopes or Raphael Guerreiro are not Portuguese footballers or Riyad Mahrez Algerians??? these players were born in France but of Portuguese parents for Lopes and Guerreiro. They are as much Portuguese as French. They are not “naturalized” like Pepe, but Portuguese by descent (they have had Portuguese nationality since birth). On French Wikipedia, we do not proceed in this way, we respect their dual identity.

(Sorry for my English, but I had to use "google trad". I don't speak English...) FC Porto6185 (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The article does not suggest that Queiroz is Mozambican. It says he was born in Mozambique, but that does not imply he has Mozambican nationality. – PeeJay 11:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

your act

You have to explain exactly why and according to what law you deleted my edit? Let your reason be clear. It is absolutely correct that I added the numbers of the tournaments so that the reader can see them.

reason?

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Asian_Club_Championship_and_AFC_Champions_League_records_and_statistics&diff=1174487120&oldid=1174450276 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHcc20 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Who gave you the right to use the word ridiculous for your ridiculous statements? I think your behavior is ridiculous and bullying.