You have reverted two pages, leaving it with incorrect records on. Where am I supposed to put a source on them pages stating the info is wrong? As for proof that is easy. Ginger Richardson scored 4 in less than 5 minutes, google it. Still leaves the question where to put the source?? The pages don't require a sentence on Richardson. Spare Koppers (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, put a source in the edit summary. Better yet, change the wording of those pages to better explain that Solskjaer’s record only applies in the Premier League era. What division were West Brom in when Richardson scored his four goals? – PeeJay 00:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will reword to Premier League instead of deleting the whole sentence. Division 1, 7 November 1931, Ginger Richardson scored four goals in five minutes between the 4th and 9th minute for West Bromwich Albion against West Ham United at Upton Park, a record that is still in the Guinness Book of Records. Spare Koppers (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but you've actually got to provide a source. You can't just say "it's in the Guinness Book of Records" without providing an edition or a page number. – PeeJay 12:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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…
569		2023 Dallas Cowboys season (talk)	Add sources
41		Anthony T. Rossi (talk)	Add sources
54		2011 Arizona Cardinals season (talk)	Add sources
296		2020 Dallas Cowboys season (talk)	Add sources
1,898		David Alan Grier (talk)	Add sources
59		2007 St. Louis Rams season (talk)	Add sources
17		Jim Whalen (talk)	Cleanup
83		Secession in China (talk)	Cleanup
356		History of the Philadelphia Eagles (talk)	Cleanup
1,580		Alaska Airlines (talk)	Expand
100		2015 New York Giants season (talk)	Expand
202		2009 Detroit Lions season (talk)	Expand
85		2008 Buffalo Bills season (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,893		World Chess Championship 2024 (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
66		49ers–Giants rivalry (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
24		Kinetic E-Luna (talk)	Merge
103		Elder (Christianity) (talk)	Merge
6		Battle of Rödsund (talk)	Merge
165		Curzon Ashton F.C. (talk)	Wikify
72		Daniel Graham (talk)	Wikify
12		Forestry in Ghana (talk)	Wikify
5		Akil Borneo (talk)	Orphan
2		Aurelia Mengin (talk)	Orphan
2		Amilcar Campos Colela (talk)	Orphan
14		Wallace Duffy (talk)	Stub
3		NFL Teacher of the Year (talk)	Stub
2		Hiroki Maeda (footballer, born 1998) (talk)	Stub
24		Jovan Malcolm (talk)	Stub
19		1960 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team (talk)	Stub
9		Flynn Duffy (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) 23:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @PeeJay: can you check my last revision on the World Rugby Pacific Nations Cup article please ? There was no 2023 PNC, these sources indicate that : [1] ; [2] for exemple. I think the 2023 article sould be deleted or renamed Pacific Nations Series for exemple because it was only a test matchs series. In 2023 and 2024, I opened 2 discussions on this subject but got little response and no decision was made. Thanks in advance, have a nice day ! Arn6338 (talk) 10:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks reasonable to me, but I'm not really that familiar with how things go in the Pacific region. – PeeJay 11:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, I came to talk to you because I know you're contributing on rugby and because I'm on Wikipedia in French, if you know other contributors to the WikiProject Rugby union can you discuss it with them if possible please, because I don't know them and English is therefore not my first language. Arn6338 (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Template:Minnesota Vikings roster navbox, you may be blocked from editing. As mentioned, several times now, NFL players are not free agents until March 12 @ 4pm ET. Yet, you've, 3 times now, made changes arguing that they're actually free agents without providing any sources, despite a source being provided that states otherwise. This is disruptive and inappropriate, and someone of your tenure and experience should know better than to edit war to intentionally add incorrect information. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to call something vandalism just because you disagree with it. I have made no such argument that these players are already free agents. My argument is that referring to them as "impending" free agents is unnecessarily pernickety. We agree that as of today they are still on their teams' rosters but that they will officially become free agents on March 12th - that is not in dispute - but if you look at any source, you'll see them already referred to as free agents; the reason for that is because barring their current team offering them a new deal before March 12th, they will be free agents on that date. We have to assume that readers at least have some sort of clue about what they're reading and don't need everything spelled out. – PeeJay 23:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to call something vandalism just because you disagree with it. – Which is why I don't do so when I simply disagree with something. Introducing deliberate factual errors is considered vandalism. Per your own response here, you've acknowledged that the changes you made, repeatedly listing players as free agents, are not accurate. Intentionally adding factual inaccurate information, and edit warring to do so, absolutely fits the definition of vandalism. It's bluntly that simple.

Why would we assume the reader knows that the players are not yet free agents? As previously mentioned, start a discussion at WT:NFL if you think we should create our own house rules to interpret NFL contracts and key dates, because as it currently stands, they're pretty straight forward in that the NFL itself explicitly states players are under contract still. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we assume the reader knows that the players are not yet free agents? Because they're still listed in the team's roster template. Referring to players who, as things stand, will be free agents in a month as free agents is not a factual error. I feel like you're being deliberately obtuse with this. – PeeJay 15:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you're being deliberately obtuse with this – The irony... You're edit warring to add text that misrepresents the situation, you've agreed that it misrepresents the situation, and you say that people will just know better. That's a pretty ridiculous stretch. We're meant to represent facts, not add information, refuse to elaborate, and expect people to just know that it's wrong instead of representing factual information. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on the content dispute, but it's pretty disheartening that an experienced admin is calling this "vandalism". It is not. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: The template regarding deliberately introducing incorrect information calls it that. I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I obviously didn't make a point to clarify that. I thought about it, but deliberate inaccuracies certainly fit my definition. Also feels weird to be called an experienced admin haha, I still feel green. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Well, of course, no one forced you to use a template...) I'm confident PeeJay is not making edits "deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". When - template or not - you tell someone they're vandalizing, you've basically given up on having a meaningful conversation. It's like calling someone an asshole, and then saying "hey, they aren't calmly discussing this with me!". That's a pretty big ask.

Anyway, PeeJay, after looking at the WT:NFL thread (one of the last 3 archives, I've already forgotten which, sorry) I'd say that's at least consensus-adjacent. Best bet is to temporarily revert yourself, and renew the conversation if you think it came to the wrong conclusion. I have to admit, it seems a little off to say "Free Agents" when they aren't. "Impending" is not the end of the world. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll take responsibility for the fact that I didn’t raise my objections at the time of the discussion, since I’ve not really been active on Wikipedia Talk pages recently. But if my objection had been raised at the time, I guarantee we wouldn’t be having this conversation now. I don’t think removing the word “impending” implies that the free agency period has already started, I think readers are smart enough to realise that the players listed are those who will be free agents when the window opens. Of course, the biggest issue is more with the {{NFL roster}} template, which now has categories for Impending Free Agents, Restricted Free Agents and Exclusive-Rights Free Agents, as though the RFAs and ERFAs are somehow not “impending”. That change needs fixing ASAP. – PeeJay 22:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about NFL terminology to know for sure, but would "impending unrestricted free agents", "impending restricted free agents", etc work? Anyway, I see now you folks have been discussing this at the NFL template talk page, but maybe you need more eyeballs. A neutral pointer at WT:NFL? And try really hard to give a little grace to each other, even if you're not sure they deserve it; you're both trying to improve the encyclopedia, I promise. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback @Floquenbeam, as always I welcome it. You're right, I could have opted not to use a template. The frustrations stem from an unwillingness to respect that the previous discussion determined one thing and they were reverting to something which is clearly inaccurate. One of those "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills" moment when someone was making edits that make something clearly not accurate. I'll keep your feedback in mind in my future interactions. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My response to that is that the way the template was before was not inaccurate because readers understand that free agency doesn’t open until March and the players listed aren’t actually on the market yet. Trust me, I’m not trying to make the encyclopaedia worse, I’m just showing some editorial nous and some understanding of the audience. – PeeJay 23:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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…
166		2025 Carolina Panthers season (talk)	Add sources
1,059		2024 NCAA Division I FBS football season (talk)	Add sources
412		2024–25 New York Knicks season (talk)	Add sources
152		VNV Nation (talk)	Add sources
205		2025 Los Angeles Rams season (talk)	Add sources
406		2025 Detroit Lions season (talk)	Add sources
57		Paralympic symbols (talk)	Cleanup
448		Beaver dam (talk)	Cleanup
350		Half-mast (talk)	Cleanup
39		1988 Summer Paralympics (talk)	Expand
457		Trial of YNW Melly (talk)	Expand
1,567		Linux kernel (talk)	Expand
134		Yugoslav First League (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,523		Copa Libertadores (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
100		Tornado emergency (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
5		Main group peroxides (talk)	Merge
4		Hydatellales (talk)	Merge
274		Tata Power (talk)	Merge
137		Doping at the Olympic Games (talk)	Wikify
12,012		January 6 United States Capitol attack (talk)	Wikify
1,732		Doechii discography (talk)	Wikify
4		Sebastian Kind (talk)	Orphan
3		Appalakunta (talk)	Orphan
31		Boosteroid (talk)	Orphan
22		Tay Martin (talk)	Stub
782		Tommy Freeman (rugby union) (talk)	Stub
51		Adjarabet Arena (talk)	Stub
25		SignalFx (talk)	Stub
15		Ukeme Eligwe (talk)	Stub
61		Ro-Shaun Williams (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) 23:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]