Talk:UEFA Euro 2004 final

Comments on Greece's football.

I take the criticism about not explaining my changes (not that others have explained why they have changed my changes but well...). There goes a copy of my 3 entries on Melbourne's talk page that illustrate my point:

"Your revision makes no sense. There is no reference for the Greek quote (which is anything but impartial) whereas mine is clearly indicated and points to an impartial journalist from a reference newspaper. Greece are seen worldwide as a synonym of anti-football. I'm not Portuguese (as you can see from my IP) and you deserve all the respect if you are Greek but that change is absurd."

"Of course you are Greek and of course you reverted on the basis of both being Greek and knowing nothing about sports (by your own admission). I reverted content that had no reference (you did not answer about the source of that inflammatory Greek propaganda). I replaced it by a quote from one of the best renown newspapers in the world. There is absolutely no offensive content. There is a simple fact stating that the negative football played by Greece earned them no sympathy throughout the world. Crucially, it's not me saying that. Is a British sports journalist. And I believe that a British sports journalist is in a better position to comment on a football match involving Greece than a Greek who doesn't like football."

" "all content that had been removed is reflected by reliable sources" I hadn't seen this. Could you please show me those reliable sources? Because, interestingly enough, your edition actually leaves the reference to the Guardian (though it makes no use of it)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.254.55.120 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why leave that comment from the Guardian in there? For those of us who know little about Greek football, you spoil the great underdog story. Take it out, like you did with most of this talk page2602:306:CD9B:E9A0:5560:1889:FD95:84E (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)ES

No. Wikipedia is not a spoiler-free zone. – PeeJay 07:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:UEFA Euro 2004 Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 11:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "second European Championship. The" overlinked.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "second. In the knockout stage," ditto.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Any reason for the refs in the infobox for the facts discussed and referenced in the main body, i.e. attendance, referee and MOTM?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Basinas corner, Greece's" corner should be linked.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link header.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Ronaldo had" link.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Sport's" use the {{'s}} to avoid the ' crashing into the s.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "matches, Estádio da Luz hosted numerous notable matches, including UEFA Euro – Quarter-final between Portugal and England in 2004,[13] UEFA Euro Final between Portugal and Greece in 2004" all but "England" already overlinked.

  Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Previously, 3 group" three.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "eventual-finalists" don't think this needs hyphenation.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• " at the Estádio da Luz in Lisbon on " overlinked.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "scored a second from a cross" how?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "was against England, on" overlinked.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "following what BBC Sport described" overlinked.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "needing on 4 points and needing" probably don't need that first "needing".

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "faced France, in" overlinked.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Chaplin for UEFA as a " overlinked.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Pre-match" anything on the squad selections?

  Added.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Phil McNulty" he can be linked.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "opportunity with a header on 38 minutes, but his header" repetitive.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "with a free kick" link.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "replaced by Paulo Ferreira in " overlinked.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The Guardian's" see above about template. Check others.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Barry Glendenning" can be linked.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "for a penalty, but" needs linking to the precise article, but then I guess it will be overlinked...

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "victory at Euro 1992." overlinked.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• "upcoming Olympic games"" I think Games is more appropriate.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Several refs UEFA.com others just UEFA, be consistent.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Scorelines in ref titles should be unspaced en-dashes, not spaced en-dashes, not unspaced hyphens.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I think I've covered all your points above. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru, another user has done a "tidy up" overnight, could you just re-check that nothing else was broken (I fixed an errant space before a full stop but have plenty of other things to do than check up on other people's "tidying"), let me know. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: as noted on the article's talk page, I have restored the previous version of the article for the time being as I didn't consider the changes made to be improvements. I'll let you decide what all this means for the GA nomination, but as far as I'm concerned it's in a good state as things stand, pending any other feedback you have here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. I guess I'll pause momentarily while the other user has a chance to respond, this somewhat undermines the stability of the article for the time being, but there's no deadline, so a day or so more and then I'll make a decision. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Morning @The Rambling Man:. As you'll see on the talk page, both myself and PeeJay are now happy with the wording of the article as it stands now, so hopefully stability is now restored. Is there any chance you can come back and have another look at the GA nom? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll include it in my GAN sweep later. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Greece won the UEFA Euro 2004 Final despite never having previously won a match at a major tournament? Source: BBC Sport: "Greece had never won a match at the final stages of an international tournament before Euro 2004"
  • ALT1:... that Greece won the UEFA Euro 2004 Final despite pre-tournament bookmaker odds of 150–1? Source: BBC Sport: "And yet still, Greece were thought of as outsiders, at odds of 150-1 coming into the tournament."

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/MindaRyn, Template:Did you know nominations/Klassische Philharmonie Bonn

5x expanded by Amakuru (talk). Self-nominated at 10:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC).

• Article appears to meet expansion requirements, no close paraphrasing found, QPQ done. The first hook is probably the best option, but the hook wording doesn't really match the BBC source (even though it's factually correct); the hook says Greece had never won a match in a major tournament, while BBC says they never won in a "finals" (I'm aware that "Finals" and "major tournaments" are synonyms in football, see the World Cup, it's just that laymen may find that wording confusing). If possible, could a second source mentioning the "major tournament" wording be added to the article as well? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Narutolovehinata5: I have added a new source, [1] which says exactly that about them never winning a game. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I see no issues with the article anymore, so we should be good to go with ALT0. I note that the article's also been nominated for GA, so good luck on that! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: thanks, and yes that's right. Also, if the GA is successful I'm hoping to push this one up to FAC in the next day or two. If you have any more detailed feedback than the DYK check, then an FA review there would be gratefully received!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Changes to detail in the lead and ref formatting etc.

Hi @PeeJay:, apologies I don't mean to be confrontational, but I've reverted your changes made to this article last night, as I don't agree with the points you've made. In particular, (1) per WP:LEAD the lead is supposed to be a standalone summary of all the major points of the match, and as such it should include brief detail on how the teams qualified, as well as a brief summary of the match - which has to be more than just "Greece scored the only goal of the game", given that the match is actually the principal subject of this article. And (2) the style used on references has been fairly standardised now, across many similar pages I've been working on, three others of which are at or close to FA status: UEFA Euro 2008 Final, 2017 Africa Cup of Nations Final and 2015 Africa Cup of Nations Final. The article is right in the middle of a Good Article nomination now, and there has already been a summary of the points that needed improving at the GAN, which I've already done. My plan is to then put it up for FA status. I'm happy to discuss where things can be improved - maybe one or two details of the match could be removed from the lead for example - but could we at least hold off until the GA review is done and then maybe discuss improvements you think can be made as part of the FA candidacy? Also pinging The Rambling Man as the GA reviewer, who may have an opinion on this. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid the ref formatting was inconsistent, so I fixed it to match what I've always done in the past. I don't mind what style is used though, as long as it's consistent. Anyway, I disagree that we need to mention a bunch of meaningless chances in the lead section. That's stuff that belongs in the "Match summary" section. The lead is supposed to be a section that people can read to get the most important info, and I'm afraid this info doesn't qualify. I also reordered the lead to put the most important info first. The fact that the two teams played each other earlier in the tournament is less important than what the score was in this match, so it should come afterwards. – PeeJay 13:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the version I reviewed. Please don't edit war while the content is being discussed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you've even read my changes properly. At the bottom of the "Background" section, why are we mentioning the Euro 2004 final as though it's not the subject of the article? Why are we mentioning the 2014 Champions League final, which didn't take place until nearly 10 years later? Why are the Euro 2004 group matches mentioned separately from the quarter-final? Why in the same section do we mention France as the team that knocked Portugal out of two of their previous major tournament appearances but not the Czech Republic as the third? Why are we using the wording "on 7 minutes" in relation to Maniche's chance against Russia when that's not actually when the incident took place (unless you can show it did actually happen on the stroke of the seven-minute mark)? I appreciate there's a lot of changes in those edits, but at least take the time to assess them properly rather than just reverting because someone found issues in the article that you missed. You're not the only one capable of doing an article review. – PeeJay 14:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not "reverting because someone found issues that (I) missed" at all. Your hostility is completely unwelcome, I don't know why you think your approach to your preferred version is ever appropriate. As you are fully aware there's a GAN in progress, you could simply have added these comments there for the nominator to address, instead of edit warring and making this such a toxic environment. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Considering you didn't even bother to tag me when you mentioned "another user" in the GAN section, it's a bit rich of you to accuse me of making this a toxic environment. I actually wasn't aware there was a GAN in progress for this article until Amakuru pinged me to this section. And as for "my preferred version", I don't think I ever mentioned anything of the kind. I'll always implement what I think is best for the article, but if there's any resistance I'm happy to yield as long as the article is consistent. – PeeJay 15:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I deliberately avoided tagging you because I am aware of your past behaviour. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

So much for assuming good faith... – PeeJay 16:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, previous experiences have taught me that many, many people should have good faith extended to them, and for a handful, that's expired. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Apparently I can now say the same for you. Your attitude towards me is entirely unbecoming of someone of your status here, and all because you've misinterpreted my comments on more than one occasion. I am heartily glad that I don't have cause to interact with you in real life on anything that actually matters. – PeeJay 16:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but back to the point, we'll keep working on articles, and we won't edit war. You, on the other hand, demonstrate a very different approach which makes it very hard to work with you. But you do you. I'm not interested in your opinion of me in the slightest. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, who’s edit warring? You’re just bullying people into agreeing with you by wikilawyering them into submission. – PeeJay 19:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

There's only one user reverting to their own preferred version ahead of a consensus version. Who is that I wonder? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I did a wholesale revert back to the previous version mainly because unfortunately there was vastly more bathwater than baby in the edits that you made. I fully agree with you on the guff about the 2014 Champions League final, and thanks to TRM for chopping that, although funnily enough that's about the only part of the body that I didn't write - it was already present before I started work on this page. But the stuff in the lead needs to remain, even if they are only "meaningless chances" to you. This article is about that game, and for better or worse it was a fairly boring game. But that doesn't mean the article's lead gets to cover the entire match in only one sentence. It will be laughed out of town if I take it to FAC with that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I highly doubt it would get "laughed out of town". There are plenty of Featured Articles about football matches that don't go into anywhere near as much detail, and while some were promoted several years ago, I don't think it's requisite for such detail to be present. Maybe something about one or both of the teams having several chances, but we don't need a full description of chances that didn't result in goals. – PeeJay 15:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Nope, we cover all major aspects, and a single sentence doesn't cover the major aspects of a 90-minute game. Sorry but you're wrong here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I heartily disagree, I think a single sentence can cover an entire game. Nevertheless, there has to be some compromise available. – PeeJay 16:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and you're wrong. It's patently absurd to think you can summarise a 1-0 football match in one sentence. The good compromise is already there in the lead. Edit-warring to make it your personally-preferred version is just unacceptable. You don't own these articles, a couple of us have been working hard on making them more than the junk they were when we stumbled across them. Don't just turn up at the eleventh hour and try to enforce your own personal preferences. That's not how Wikipedia works, I thought you'd have known that by now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, who says I'm trying to enforce personal preferences? Compromise is not me yielding to your judgement, it is you having the humility to accept that someone might have a different opinion to you and working to find a middle ground. If you think there aren't football matches you can summarise in one sentence, I don't think you've watched enough football. There is no edit war here, just a bully who thinks that just because he's fortunate enough to have the time to work commendably hard on Wikipedia articles, he's automatically infallible. As I've said, if you think you need more than just a statement of who scored the only goal of the game and when, that's fine, but the level of detail currently present in the lead section is too much, and on that I will not yield. – PeeJay 16:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"on that I will not yield" tough luck. Consensus rules. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

It’s not a consensus if there’s only three people involved, one of whom disagrees. – PeeJay 19:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but in the meantime that means stop edit-warring. You're alone right now in your opinion. Respect that position, as we do. If you find others in your favour, that's fine too. But stop edit-warring. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You really need to stop accusing people of doing things they’re not doing. Point me to the last time I made an edit that could be described as edit warring, and then tell me exactly how that edit made the article worse. Just because it’s not your “approved version” doesn’t mean it’s not a constructive change. – PeeJay 19:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, this is edit-warring, you restored your own preferred version. In doing so you created a toxic environment around an article which some of us are trying hard to improve. And you did that while a talkpage discussion was going on. So yes, you edit-warred and made the article worse. You haven't edited there constructively, just aggressively to force your own point of view. Please desist. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

So your only complaint is that it’s not your preferred version, gotcha. This is absolutely typical of you. Try taking off your blinkers and see that I’m trying to help make the article as good as it can be. I am not here to be disruptive, and your spurious accusations of creating a toxic atmosphere are utterly laughable. It’s a real shame you’re too arrogant to apologise. – PeeJay 20:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Weird. You edit-warred to try to retain your own version. I was a GAN reviewer and I was relatively happy with someone else's nomination here. You need to take a break, your disruptive, toxic edit-warring is not what any of us want around us. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Weird, I was under the impression that just because an article gets to GA status that didn’t suddenly mean it was perfect and could never be changed. Get off your high horse and recognise that I’m on your side. – PeeJay 20:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to make a positive contribution there. This conversation, for me, is done. Goodbye. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I already tried making a positive contribution and you rejected it because it wasn’t your approved version. Expect a report at WP:ANI when I’m not contributing from my phone. – PeeJay 20:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Bizarre, but sure, I look forward to your ANI report, I really do. Be sure to include that you edit-warred to keep your preferred version of the page despite an open discussion on the talk page. That will go down really well. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay: how about we dial this down a notch. There's no need for trips to WP:ANI, just because we have a content dispute and feelings are running high. The admins would probably just tell us it's a content issue and that we need to work it out together. Now I've written this article pretty much from scratch, given that the prose was basically just a short stub when it started. As indeed I've done for Euro 2008 and the other African finals I mentioned. So while I don't WP:OWN this article any more than you do, you'll surely see why it's slightly annoying for me that you're here at this particular time tweaking bits of the text, changing the style of references etc, even removing bits from the lead that I feel belong there (and which TRM has agreed to in the GA review). No doubt if you'd written the article it would look somewhat different, but there are many ways to skin a cat, and in the interests of this GA (which you didn't know about at the time you made the changes) I'd like to just leave it the way it is for now. The GA standard is not so strict that we can't pass it as it stands now, with TRM's recommended fixes, which I've carried out. Now after the GA is complete, my plan is to take the article on to FAC. Indeed I hope to do that as soon as possible. Once it's there, there will be lots of eyes on the article, including yours if you so desire. We can work through the level of detail we want in the lead at that point, take things blow by blow, hopefully get lots more input and feedback in the process and then get this article to the best it can be and earn it a shiny star. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I do certainly understand, Amakuru. Please don't take it as a personal slight that I found ways in which the article could be improved; as I said earlier, I find it highly commendable that you've given up so much of your time to improve these articles, but none of us are perfect. And yes, while the GA criteria are less strict than at FA, there's nothing wrong with tightening up the prose before we reach GA instead of waiting until we get to FA. Unfortunately, no one has yet told me why any of the changes I made to the "Background" section had a negative effect on the article other than to say "it's not what we agreed" (as if that carries any weight). As the major contributor to the article, would you care to weigh in on my changes rather than accusing me of toxicity like a big baby? – PeeJay 21:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@PeeJay: I am about to log off for the night at this point, but I will certainly take a more detailed look at the differences in "Background" between my version and your version tomorrow. I'm not promising that I'll agree with you, and certainly it's not ideal to have this in the middle of a GA review, but if that's the main point of contention then perhaps we can work through it. Cheers, and good night  — Amakuru (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

PeeJay And as you suggested, let's also discuss this situation this at ANI. Please ping me when you've opened the discussion about your own edit warring and personal attacks. 21:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm done talking to you. You've been nothing but an absolute arsehole in this discussion. You always assume I'm making edits to get your goat and I'm sick to death of it. Get it through your thick skull: I AM ON YOUR SIDE. – PeeJay 21:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, let me know when you post the ANI report. Calling me an "absolute arsehole" is certainly a basic breach of WP:NPA and should see you blocked, but hey, I'm not going to pursue that. Learn to work with others. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Take your own advice. You said goodbye earlier, maybe remove yourself from this conversation instead of being deliberately provocative. – PeeJay 22:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You said you were reporting me at ANI. Get on with it or stop being such a WP:DICK. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, take a look in a mirror. Your attitude is abysmal. – PeeJay 22:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Let me know when you've posted the ANI case. Otherwise, move along. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you still here? Go to bed and stop prattling on. Or better yet, actually give me a content-based reason why my edit was so bad. Don't worry, I know you can't. – PeeJay 22:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. And the personal attacks have been noted. Your edit was poor but some of your thoughts were useful. Instead of of making such "grand" edits and then edit-warring, next time just add them to (a) the talk page or (b) the GAN page. There, they will receive appropriate attention. I recognise that you have to resort to personal attacks but I won't pursue that, although you should be blocked or even banned for some of your comments, tonight alone. I would recommend you don't express your frustration in the same way going forward: next time I receive the numerous personal attacks from you, I will not hesitate to seek your permanent exclusion from the project. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Commenting on your conduct, which has been poor, is not a personal attack. One would think someone with your experience would know that. – PeeJay 22:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. And the personal attacks have been noted. Your edit was poor but some of your thoughts were useful. Instead of of making such "grand" edits and then edit-warring, next time just add them to (a) the talk page or (b) the GAN page. There, they will receive appropriate attention. I recognise that you have to resort to personal attacks but I won't pursue that, although you should be blocked or even banned for some of your comments, tonight alone. I would recommend you don't express your frustration in the same way going forward: next time I receive the numerous personal attacks from you, I will not hesitate to seek your permanent exclusion from the project. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Weird, this is from you, who edit-warred. Never mind. It's not that important to me. I guess you have something to prove. Go for it. Good luck! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

What I have to prove is that my edit was absolutely fine and you still haven't given me any reason why it wasn't. – PeeJay 22:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure. You know the drill here though, restore the pre-edit-warring version and then discuss changes. It appears you don't do that sort of thing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

And oh: fix things per consensus, not by your own preference. I think we're all happy with changes made that improve our readers' experience, but things like changing "cite web" to "cite news" is just a waste of life. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I love how I'm apparently living rent-free in your head right now. You just can't tear yourself away from the conversation. And you still can't give me a content-based reason why my edit was bad. Talk about clutching at straws. – PeeJay 23:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You "love" it? This isn't Twitter. How embarrassing for you. I mentioned your behaviour earlier, and this "tweet" just exemplifies it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Still no explanation of why my edit was "poor"? I know you're a prideful person, so it must hurt you to admit I actually didn't do anything wrong, but it would be a lot easier for everyone if you just bit the bullet. And by the way, one of the central tenets of WP:DICK is not to accuse others of violating it, it just makes you look like one. – PeeJay 23:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Are we literally still doing this? My basics: this article was junk and it was improved beyond recognition. I reviewed it for GA (not FA) and left a load of comments. I hadn't passed the article for GA before it was markedly changed mid-review by another user, who said they were unaware of the review. Some time later, I will re-review the article, regardless of the nonsense. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

We're literally still doing this because you haven't answered my question for whatever reason. More fool me for this, mainly because I already know the answer, but here's another one: how many of my changes are still in the article? Maybe you should actually review my changes instead of blindly reverting them because you've got some childish vendetta against me. – PeeJay 23:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about you. I just won't tolerate pathetic edit-warring. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

So instead of answering the question, you're just going to be petty? There is/was no edit warring, it's all in your head. – PeeJay 23:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Morning @PeeJay:, it's a new day and hopefully we can put the acrimony of last night behind us. I have had a look through your changes from yesterday, and reinstated several of them to the background section which seemed useful, as well as other general error fixes you'd made. I've left the lead as is, though, per my reasoning above, and also left the reference formatting alone, as it does have a consistent style in that regard, and one which has been used elsewhere. Hopefully we can now move forward productively on this and get the GA signed off ASAP. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Works for me, have a good day! – PeeJay 09:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kit shorts gre04h.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kit body gre04h.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)