User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2019/March

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Hippo43. 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.

Giuliano Maiorana

Hi Hippo43, sorry to ask if you're busy, because I wondered if you'd be able to correct the nationality and background of footballer Giuliano Maiorana in the article, please? Because there's been a lot of confusion over this, at one time an IP made an unsourced claim that Maiorana's parents were from Avellino but I've found this interview, which elaborates on this. Other IPs have since removed information and categories relating to this and I'm still unsure about were FIFA eligibility rules and him being born in Cambridge come in and how to phrase it. Theo Mandela (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Theo, thanks for getting in touch. I'm a bit confused. What do you think the article should say? --hippo43 (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, basically, from what I understood from this interview, Maiorana classes himself as Italian, his parents are from Avellino, he's never had a British passport and he wanted to play in Serie A and for the Italy national football team. The article refers to him as "an English former footballer", but now I don't know if it should be changed because of how the FIFA elligibility rules and him being born and raised and living in Cambridge affect this.

If you look at the page's revision history you'll see that some IP editors have been edit waring over this a while back, including removing info about his parents' background (though unsourced) and categories "English people of Italian descent" and "People of Campanian descent".

I just wondered if you'd know the answer to this because of your edits to a number of football-related articles, thanks. Theo Mandela (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, cool. I don't think the interview is really a good source, but I think we should use it because there aren't other high quality sources covering this guy.

If we accept what he says is true, then we know he is Italian, and we know his parents are Italian from Avellino. We also know he is English because he was born in Cambridge. I wouldn't be concerned about FIFA rules as he never played international football.

So I would say we either call him "an English-Italian former footballer" or something similar, or we say he is a "former footballer who played for Manchester United..." Either way, we should then explain his background in the next sentence - something like "Maiorano was born in Cambridge, England, to Italian parents from Avellino..."

What do you think? --hippo43 (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, whatever you think is the most appropriate phrasing and best up to Wikipedia's standard (I don't edit many biographical articles myself). The start of the 'career' section is also very underwritten; "Maiorana was born in Cambridge." doesn't even give a birth year and the categories should be restored if the interview is sourced, sorry for late reply. Theo Mandela (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi again @Hippo43: Would it be ok if you make these edits please? What we've mentioned here in the article text and categories relating to it. Because at this moment, it's not my strong suit. Theo Mandela (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Just go ahead and do it. You will be fine. --hippo43 (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I would but I don't know the right wording, I'm not sure where links should go or how full-scale an edit is needed (infobox changes, 'career' section, what order to add categories, etc.). I think you'd do a better job. Let me know, thanks. Theo Mandela (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Heads up

Hello there,

i'm back, and i see you wasted no time commencing to follow me around again (i.e. 1 - Álvaro Morata, yes you are totally "correct", if one says the "nation" in the intro no one will understand one is referring to the "Spain team", so it's better to repeat "Spain" again); 2 - Rafa Silva, you say "nope, not in English", then remove a comma, don't they have those (and other punctuation symbols) in English? 3 - again, i mention you we prefer "matches" over "games" in football bios, maybe this one will hit home). Have the gut feeling that, in your opinion, i'm one of the worst WP editors out there, funny no one told me that in 12 years.

I will cleanup after your cleanups whenever i feel necessary, but don't worry i don't feel i can take more of it again and eventually will (re)quit. This time, however, will not act like a prima donna (hey all, look at me) like the first time ("times", better put), will simply cease to edit without telling anyone; i know you are doing this to improve articles and have nothing personal against me, but this is making me feel very uncomfortable.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Leaving a comment like that is acting like a prima donna. If you keep making the same mistakes and I see them on my watchlist, I will usually try to correct them if I have the time. Unfortunately you do the same thing at so many articles it's impossible to correct them all. It is very frustrating that someone who doesn't speak English as their first language is arguing over what phrases are appropriate or where to place commas in English, or keeps adding words like "netted" which are not appropriate, or keeps adding very misleading links etc etc etc. Perhaps you should listen to some feedback from someone who knows what they are talking about. --hippo43 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the "netting" part you are 100% correct, i will try to avoid that altogether from now on. --Quite A Character (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

To make things easier, please don't edit your comments after I've replied - leave a new comment instead. Who says "we prefer 'matches' over 'games'"? Both are commonly used in English. --hippo43 (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I think your reverts at Jaume Doménech are a mistake, and this would be a foolish way to continue. It will only cause conflict if you continue to reflexively revert minor points without discussing them. --hippo43 (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Someone referred that years ago ("matches" over "games"), cannot pinpoint exactly when or who. Anyhow, the point is now moot as far as i'm concerned (if you are 100% sure "games" is also widely used in English, i'm not going to discuss it anymore, i've acknowledged long ago you are way above me in terms of mastering the English language, of course); as far as Mr. Doménech goes, i think your version, as well as it clearly points/directs to the pertinent seasonal wikilinks, is presented in a sort of broken English (not saying you intended it that way, but it sounds that way at least to me).

Going to sleep now, i'm sorry if we got up on the wrong editorial foot (again), i'm sure we'll get somewhere. Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Broken English? At least my version sounds like English. --hippo43 (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply. I meant the display of the seasonal wikilinks, not the overall text, i replied to you a bit late and tipsy in the first message, perhaps the choice of words was not the best. Regarding the usage of "campaign" over "season", here's this Google search (https://www.google.com/search?q=manchester+united+campaign&ei=UyJ_XOn2OMWBur4P-Nyz-AY&start=0&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwip7LTMruzgAhXF). Regarding Mr. Morata and the use of "represent a nation", this search also shows some examples attesting to this (https://www.google.com/search?q=represent+nation+football&ei=tiN_XIn2Goysac_1kZAI&start=0&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwiJqbr1r-zgAhUMVhoKHc96BII4HhDy0wMIhwE&biw=1280&bih=881). I never meant to be insulting ("not saying you intended it that way, but it sounds that way at least to me"), but you were ("At least my version sounds like English"). No worries, i know what you think of me encyclopediawise. --Quite A Character (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure you really know how to use Google. Searching for manchester united campaign brings you lots of results where the word "campaign" is not used to mean "season" at all. Yes, "campaign" is sometimes used to mean "season", but it is idiomatic and sounds weird when it is used equally as often as "season". It's good to avoid repetition sometimes, but it's not ok to use "campaign" 50% of the time. In a football article, there is nothing wrong with repeating a common word like "season" (or "club" or "team" etc.) Also, there is nothing wrong with using 2014-15 season, 2015-16 season etc, which are extremely clear for readers. Hiding links with things like "next edition of the tournament" is not helpful for readers at all.

Second, "represent a nation" isn't the phrase I removed - it was "represent the nation", which is not often used in talking about football. "Represent the country" or "represent his country" are more normal. "Played for Spain" is even more usual. It's a small thing, which I wouldn't expect you to know, but is a good example of why you should try to accept some feedback. There is nothing wrong with repeating a word like "Spain" in this context. --hippo43 (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I see, thank you. Again, i don't pretend to know better (language wise) even though you think i think so, and that "I'm not sure you really know how to use Google" remark really made me cringe (no hope for me then, not only as a WP editor but also as a human being), i am that dumb to you apparently (well, at least you express it politely and for that i commend you).

Speaking without comedy (or lack thereof) now: yes i should be open to feedback from fellow editors, yes i should be more open-minded to corrections/criticism. Don't you think you could also do that? Leonardo Jardim, please stop changing the name of the club from Sporting CP to Sporting, it's "Sporting CP" in the infobox, "Sporting CP" in the introduction and "Sporting CP" in the body of article (once it has been established the first time, sure it's OK to write "Sporting" only); if you notice, 100% of all the other changes you made to article have remained intact (from where i'm coming at least).

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Re Google, your Google searches are not helping to support your points. I wasn't trying to be insulting, I just don't think you know what you are doing.

Re Leonardo Jardim, I honestly don't know what your problem is. You have started to edit war over tiny trivial points. The common name of the club in English is Sporting (or maybe Sporting Lisbon). In the lead we don't say SC Braga, we say Braga. Maybe you should change the other mentions to Sporting? --hippo43 (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Good morning, only logged in today. OK sorry, my mixup regarding your Google commentary. Re Mr. Jardim/Sporting, I have tried to reason it with you more than once to no avail. I repeat, there are dozens of clubs named Sporting in the world (Sporting CP, Sporting Gijón, Sporting Cristal, etc), hence we need the "Sporting CP" mention in the first instance where club is mentioned in storyline. Surely, and again with the utmost respect, you are wrong now and then in your reasonings/approach, are you not? Hundreds and hundreds of articles written like that (including this one of a humble player, see his early storyline). And no, club is not known as Sporting Lisbon (at least not worldwide); for the moment, article stays how you want, with (apparently) two different Sporting clubs. I assure you this will be explained to completion, if I am mistaken (I doubt it this time, I know for you I am never right but alas sometimes I am).

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Bruno Fernandes (footballer, born 1994): of course, I will never be able to get in a word edgewise, maybe I should stick to updating infoboxes, adding honours and references to already perfectly outlined storylines (such as yours). I mentioned in summary (as one should do to explain one's edits) he played his last year as a junior with Novara Calcio, you were having none of that (and if "completed his development" is not correct English, how about rephrasing the bit instead of a blanket removal; note: I have tried another wording approach, let's see what you make of this).

Also, in the end of club career (about his record), I tried to trim it down because it was obvious, stemming from the start of sentence, he had broken Mr. Oliveira's record of goals, not fishes. I also explained it in the summary, no cigar. OK, it stays your way (again). --Quite A Character (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Manuel Jiménez Jiménez now, this leads to the (polite) question: does your watchlist consist solely of my contributions (bringing to mind your sentence in your very first reply to me in this thread, "If you keep making the same mistakes and I see them on my watchlist...")? Surely appears so, I cannot stress enough how uncomfortable this makes me feel (but as you undoubtedly feel you are doing it for the good of WP please continue), am I the only editor that needs their English/article display cleaned up? Funny (again I repeat myself, I know) no one mentioned it to me in 12 years - you could counter with "better late than never, stop crying" - but you would agree with me when I say it's curious to say the least, especially given the amount of articles I (have) edit(ed) and my colourful summaries (in the past some were downright ugly if you think this is an encyclopedia, now they are getting better and neutral as they should), that would surely attract attention not only due to my lack of civility and hystericals but also to my (poor) level of English and (example) over-over-use of WP:EASTEREGG; before you came, one or two remarks regarding the latter, zero regarding the former; many many articles I edit massively were/are highly watched, as the Spaniards at Chelsea, a couple of players of the same country playing in England and the many many Portuguese players that represent top teams across Europe, they did not look that awful back in the day... --Quite A Character (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Mr. Jardim started here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Leonardo_Jardim), I pinged you there but nonetheless notify you here as well. --Quite A Character (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Re "completed his formation/development", this is not an expression used in English in this context. "formation" is not used in English like this at all - it is a well known false friend. I really don't know what you are trying to say with this phrase, so I can't rewrite it. I guess it is not an important point so I just don't care too much about rewriting it.

Re Oliveira, it wasn't obvious at all. It could be a club record, or a record for all clubs. Or something else. It is better to be clear - no harm at all in using more words to clarify it. The way I left it is good English.

Re Jardim/Sporting, I don't care too much. IMO Sporting is the most common name in English. Sporting CP was already mentioned in the article, so it seemed obvious to me to use the common name. It is absolutely clear which team we are talking about. I think it is ridiculous to edit war over that.

Re my contributions. I don't have the time or inclination to pay attention to every article you edit. Not even close. I'm not interested in making you uncomfortable at all - I'm sorry you feel that. However, sometimes I see mistakes in articles. Of course I don't know who wrote the original material. What do you think I should do when I keep seeing the same errors over and over again? --hippo43 (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Mr. Fernandes, that last sentence in the first paragraph meant he ended his junior career with Novara, then became a senior. I have seen (written by myself or others) "finished his development" in several articles, no problem whatsoever; Re Mr. Jardim, an administrator said Sporting is too ambiguous (i.e. many clubs with that denomination, you did not believe me of course) and we should be consistent and go with "Sporting CP" in every department (box, story, intro). Maybe this proves you wrong and it's the end of this debate (two notes on that: 1 - i am reverting you again, to meet WP:FOOTY consensus - please note, another user has said the same as the administrator in the meantime; 2 - you say i'm engaging in a petty edit war. Fine, but it takes two to tango and in this case i am right and you are not, i do not know how to put this more clearly, please stop).

Saving the best for last, at Jason (Spanish footballer): "Levante reserves may not be professional - I don't know - but that is not mentioned in the source". You do not know (they are not! They play in the senior leagues as the first team, but players registered by them have amateur status), yet go right ahead and reverted. Source says he came from the reserves, played his first pro match against Sevilla and then returned to the amateur side, only returning to the main squad for that match (that the ref speaks of) against Barcelona; LOL, only noticed now you did the same in Mr. Fernandes ("unless i am mistaken this is not in source", it is! Saying something to the effect of "he started playing for the juniors after arriving but, shortly after, moved to the seniors and never looked back)! This also for Jason (http://epoca1.plazadeportiva.com/ver/10219/jason--primer-canterano-que-debuta-de-la-mano-de-caparros-.html), not re-adding anything at the moment because i'm honestly getting tired of these "adjustments".

I honestly do not know how you come to my page and say "I think you have done too much good work..." when apparently i do not know (99,9999999999% of) what i'm doing. Not calling you a hypocrite no sir, it's just the discrepancy is there. --Quite A Character (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

"I am right and you are not" makes you sound like a child. At first I tried to help you with the mistakes you keep making in English, but you insist you know better and want to argue every small point. It is becoming pathetic.

Re Fernandes, I don't know which sentence you mean. Please let me know which one, and how you think it should be translated into English.

Re the phrase "finished his development", please point out where this is common in English sources.

Re Levante reserves, you may very well be correct. But my point is that what you have put into the article does not appear in the source, as far as I can see, and is therefore Original Research. If I have missed something in one of the sources, please let me know specifically which sentence, and again how you think it should be translated into English. Perhaps you don't understand the different ways "professional" is used in English?

Re your talk page, I was trying to be polite, and encouraging. You have done a lot of work on a lot of articles. However, some aspects of your English are not very strong. Even your talk page contributions are rambling and incoherent sometimes. I think you need to be open to accepting feedback. --hippo43 (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Mr. Jardim, i did not say that ("i am right and you are wrong") to wave anything in your face, i meant in the light of the WP:FOOTY discussion. I created it to show you i was not making anything up and that i was trying to follow the MOS (at least to some extent, i'll admit i'm not very proficient at that, without hesitation), you call me pathetic?! And i never insisted i knew better regarding the usage of English, can you please provide an example where (you think) i said that?

Regarding Mr. Fernandes, the sentence i meant (implying that was what you were asking, not 100% sure) was in his reference #1, which reads in the fifth paragraph "Novara were eventually relegated in that year of 2012, but, even with the juniors, he did not look back. And gladly so: he was promoted to the seniors and impressed so much that, as early as 2013, the local press dubbed him the ‘Maradona of Novara’."; regarding the term "finish one's development" i'm not going to make further fuss about that one, maybe i read something different in some godforsaken article(s) here and now can't make heads or tails of it; see, i can admit i am 100% wrong when i am!

Regarding the last item: 1 - my summaries are now more calm and less rambling, even if the editing (according to you, for example) is still poor; 2 - i sometimes ramble on engaging in conversation with fellow users, trying too hard to get my point across sometimes results in stuff being a bit "lost"; 3 - "I think you need to be open to accepting feedback". I agree completely fellow user, but couldn't you do the same now and then (the Jardim article is a glaring example of that)?

Now i have to leave the computer for a couple of hours, will reply further if anything else needs to be said. Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, your approach to minor points of disagreement is pathetic.

The Jardim example is not a "glaring example" of anything. It is a disagreement on a tiny matter of judgment, of exactly how to link to a club name - whether we should leave out two letters in this instance or wait until the next time it is mentioned. Just because you found another couple of editors to agree with you doesn't mean you are "right".

I note you haven't answered my questions about how you have interpreted sources. Please let me know where the sources say what you think they say. --hippo43 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, please don't edit your comments like that after I have replied.

Re examples of where I think you insisted you know better - you have now made at least 16 entries on my talk page about this stuff. Are you joking?

Do you have a source which supports your statement ("for his last year as a junior") or not? If you do, can you again please state clearly which sentence you mean in the original and how you think it should be translated into English? thanks --hippo43 (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, two editors saying "Sporting CP" is the way to go does not mean anything, end of (this) discussion because i don't want to be called "pathetic" again (and please note, i mention i created the WP:FOOTY discussion just so we could be sure everything was being done - by me - properly according to WP, and you did not seem to find that courteous). I don't think there is the need to resort to that, but hey you would know.

Re the rest of your last message, i have already replied regarding Mr. Fernandes (please see above), regarding Mr. Jason source reads, in the fourth paragraph of the Marca source, "Under Alcaraz, Jason would only take part in another match, the next at home against Granada, before RETURNING to the reserves waiting to carve a permanent niche in the first-team setup."; the one i just sent to your talkpage, reads in the sixth paragraph "In the previous season, he was part of the Levante youth team of the Honour Division but he played some matches with the reserve team and even trained with the main squad." (article written on 27 August 2013, hence in line with season described in storyline). But hey, both articles stay with your version.

Regarding Fernandes again, if he played a couple of weeks with the Novara juniors then quickly moved up to the seniors wouldn't that mean he finished his youth career there (hence, last year as junior, after that only senior teams exist)? I think so, and it's all there in the reference #2 (first in storyline).

16 (or 13 entries, or 8) about similar matters is taking a piss according to you? Never my intention kind sir, i was only trying to delve into the matter(s) at hand, never meant to bother you. I won't do so anymore, sorry for the inconvenience. --Quite A Character (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, so you admit the Observador source does not state that Fernandes "joined Novara Calcio in Italy for his last year as a junior".

And you admit that neither of the sources about Jason state that he made his "professional debut" or that the reserves are not professional. Good.

All you need to do is read what the sources actually say. It isn't complicated.

And regarding "finished his development", I removed your earlier wording "finished his formation", and you replaced it with "finished his development". When I removed this, you said you had seen it in numerous articles. When I challenged this you could not produce any examples. You admitted you were "100% wrong" only after making several comments arguing about it. This is a perfect example of where you think you know better. Do you realise much time you are wasting with this crap? Once again, I suggest you accept some feedback and stop arguing/edit warring over small matters of English that you don't really understand. --hippo43 (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Editorial run-ins

Hello there again, from Portugal,

apparently, we meet again after the situation at Unai Emery (which you may have noticed i stopped editing since that). Do you feel my edits such a concern to you and the community now (i have been editing here for 12 years and never have i been undone - or similar - in such a fashion, interesting it has happened only now if my approach was so poor)? Additionally, i think i have the right to further compose or re-compose after you as much as you in the opposite direction, would you agree not?

For example, at Sandro Mendes: 1 - apparently, you think only Villarreal CF needs to be compressed, i have compressed all the clubs and added +1 ref (so i did not undo anything you added, merely improved on that; 2 - to say "team"/"side" instead of "club" all the time is perfectly acceptable, i try to vary now and then in that regard (as well as saying "appoint" instead of "hire" regarding managers, in Leonardo Jardim you were having none of that, and i read somewhere here that assistant spells can be part of the infobox if it's relevant to the subject's career, in Mr. Jardim's case i think it is as all of his career has been dedicated to coaching; 3 - again Mr. Mendes, why did you write he was appointed director of football in 2018 when ref does not say that (it says he was working there in May 2018, just that).

Attentively (please don't fret if i don't continue this conversation today, will be leaving the house as of now. Will write more tomorrow, if it's of any use/need to you) --Quite A Character (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for getting in touch.

To be honest, I don't understand what you want. Your questions don't really make sense. If you have something specific to ask me, please let me know very clearly. Use short sentences. Thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Here I am again. I thought I was speaking perfectly correct English (or at least passable in conversation), seems not. Let's have another go, in short sentences as required: 1 - what's the problem with saying "appoint" instead of "hire"? 2 - what's the problem with saying "team" or "side" instead of "club"; 3 - what's the problem with saying "victory over"/"defeat of" instead of always "win/loss against"? 4 - reverting me again in Mr. Mendes' article, you don't allow for the writing of "latter" (two clubs in that phrase, Porto was the second one) or "competitive matches" (meaning he might have played in friendlies after being hired, but never in official matches, opting to say "Porto" again. Sure, that approach of yours is 100% correct, but I feel mine is too without the over repetition of words; again in Mr. Semedo (where I have compressed all the clubs, not just Fiorentina), in the first paragraph of the Villarreal sub-section, I do not understand why do we have to write "Semedo" again instead of "he", are we to imply the manager Javier Calleja ostracised himself after being appointed (also there, towards the end, can I/we please write a sentence without that many full stops? In what is the quality of the sentence/wording lessened if I/we do)?

Again, the polite question but now more direct (and that in no way means you do not have the right to edit articles where I edit, because you do of course!): am I being scrutinised? If I am, why (language, grammar, MOS) please? Speaking of MOS/language, I commend you for the composition of Mr. Semedo's "Legal issues" section, looks much better now.

I wish you a nice day --Quite A Character (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll try to answer your questions.

1. It depends on the context. I'm not sure which example you mean. I think there was an example of "appointed at (club)", which is not really used in English and sounded a bit odd.

2. Again, it depends on the context. I don't remember where this came up. Do you have an example? All three have slightly different (although overlapping) meanings.

3. No problem necessarily, but it depends on the context. I know I changed the word "success" to win/victory a few times. "Success" is not used in English to mean "win" in this sense. ("a 2-0 home success" for example, is not correct). "Win" and "loss" are the clearest, neutral words in English and in a football article are bound to be repeated. I don't think that is really a problem.

4. "The latter club" is unnecessary and again sounds a bit weird. It's not terrible, it just isn't used much in English in this way. I think you maybe over-use "the former"/"the latter" in general. They aren't very common in English and there are clearer ways of expressing the same point.

5. "competitive matches" is unnecessary here. As far as I can see, sources say he played no games for Porto, so there's no need to be more elaborate.

6? Your sentence that starts "Sure, that approach..." makes about 6 different points, so I don't really know what you are asking. This is a good example of a long sentence that would be better split into several sentences. Each part is obviously not written in "perfect" English, so it gets very confusing. It's obviously not a problem on a talk page, but in an article it isn't really good enough.

7. Are you being scrutinised? I don't really know what you mean. I have been spending time recently reading some articles on Spanish and Portuguese football, among others. Of course these have been written by the same few editors, including you, and naturally some of the editors do not have English as their first language. When I come across work that needs to be corrected, and if I have time, I try to fix it. In these articles, I keep coming across the same mistakes and problems - sometimes vocabulary, weird constructions that aren't used in English, using different tenses in the same sentence which don't make sense, bad translations from sources, and those old misleading piped links! Obviously I don't know who made a mistake when I see it. I'm not trying to scrutinise anyone, just improve articles that have the same errors over and over again.

I hope that helps. If you have specific questions about what I've done, please ask. I've made a lot of small edits, so diffs would be useful. --hippo43 (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back at me so soon and so thoroughly :) About item #2, your definition is quite correct ("slightly different (although overlapping) meanings"), so I thought it would be of no harm to use all three ("club", "side" and "team") regardless of context; about the meaning of "appoint", I have written the verb (and seen it written by others) in several articles, so I thought it was correct - obviously, I am not going to naysay a native of the language when I myself am not. That being said, I'll stop writing that one ("appoint") and "success" altogether, thanks again for pointing it out.

Continue the good work, please come to me if I can be of any assistance. --Quite A Character (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about club/side/team. They are more or less the same. Club is more often used to mean the organisation as a whole, team maybe more often to mean the 11 on the field. Side is more informal, but good to use instead of team sometimes to avoid repetition.

About appoint, it is difficult to explain. Sometimes it is used, sometimes it just doesn't quite work. I will try to think to explain why.

I have made some edits to Adrien Silva today, not to be difficult, hopefully to explain some of these similar points. --hippo43 (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

One other thing, regarding team names. I have changed some of these to the most common name in English, but I haven't changed every team, as I don't always know what is most commonly used in Portugal or Spain. --hippo43 (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

That's an easy one, at least as far as the "FC", "CD", "CF" are concerned. Pipe all --Quite A Character (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Leonardo Jardim / Sandro Mendes

Good morning,

not feeling very confident that I will not be reverted again, but i'll try to explain what I just did clearly in Mr. Jardim's article: 1 - very minor composition to your composition in wording (avoided overusage of "sign" and "contract" in same sentence, did not alter meaning in any way OK?); 2 - you say SPORTING CP had already been mentioned, so it did not deserve to be (over)linked. Where? In intro yes, but not in storyline, that's a different matter altogether; 3 - in text, we write "two" not "2"; 4 - finally, I compressed AS Monaco FC in text because it still had not been so.

In Mr. Mendes: 1 - "switch allegiance" is 100% correct OK (see this Google search https://www.google.com/search?q=switch+allegiance+football&rls=com.microsoft:pt-PT:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&gws_rd=ssl)? 2 - "team"/"level" stays INSIDE the wikibrackets, not OUTSIDE. --Quite A Character (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Update: quite difficult not to think I'm being followed around (pretty much all the pages I've edited yesterday/before yesterday you have also), but alas. Now, among others, Enric Gallego: 1 - "he remained an instrumental unit in the following campaigns, as they missed out promotion in 2013." removed as being NONSENSE when the content is sourced?! You can rephrase it sure, but remove it? Reinstated, please do engage in the pertinent grammar/language arrangements in that bit, I'm sure you can accommodate and beyond; 2 - "misleading link when it relates to clubs in different divisions", read your summary note. LOL, clubs came from SAME tier (reinstated as well)! 3 - "cleanup. none of that is in the source". So, you proceed to remove an entire sentence (not with ref for age of debut but at least with source for match of debut), ref and all. Reinstated, with new reference (that news article has "rounded up" his age of debut to 32, but it's not 100% correct - said match against Deportivo de La Coruña, the one you removed, was in AUGUST, his birthday in SEPTEMBER; hence, 31 years and 11 months); 4 - to say/write "fellow league team/club/side" is also utter nonsense? Then, damn all those ENGLISH writers of sports articles for misleading me (https://www.google.com/search?q=fellow+league+club&rls=com.microsoft:pt-PT:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&gws_rd=ssl)!

Again, cheers --Quite A Character (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll still take the time to read your reply (should there be one) and re-reply subsequently, but will retire from WP after I finish this message. Why losing my mind over edit-warrings, even polite ones such as ours. 13th anniversary (as an editor) is approaching, not superstitious in any way but it's time to quit!

Take care (from now on, you can clean up my many glaring errors without any fear of reversion) --Quite A Character (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to reply to each of these. Please don't use all caps.

First, I hope you don't quit. I think that is unnecessary, but maybe it shows how emotionally attached you are to the articles you have worked on? It might be better if you relaxed a bit and didn't immediately edit war over any small improvements another editor makes to "your" articles.

Sporting. I'm not going to argue about linking to the first example of a term after the lead. Either approach is fine. However, it is not ambiguous in this article that Sporting means Sporting CP. I don't know if there are thousands of clubs with this name, but in English, and in this article, it is obvious who we are talking about.

Switch allegiance. It is not "100% correct OK". Yes, it is a phrase that is often used in news reports in this context. That doesn't mean it is ok here. The tone is wrong - it is an idiomatic expression that is fine for a newspaper, but not correct for an encyclopedia. "He chose to represent Cape Verde" is much clearer, simpler and unambiguous. "Switch allegiance" also has a more literal meaning, which some readers may be confused by. Wikipedia is written for a general audience of English speakers, and readers have various levels of understanding. Simpler and clearer is better.

remained an instrumental unit. This is nonsense. Maybe the word nonsense offended you, but this makes no sense in English. I don't know what it means - "was an important part" perhaps? More importantly, it does not appear in the source given. Also, "campaigns" is not really used in the plural like this. "following seasons" would be ok, "following campaigns" not.

Gallego's professional debut. The source given did not mention that this game was his "professional debut", or his debut at all, or mention his age. While the sentence may have been correct, it was unsourced, and it was unclear that his previous teams in the article are all not "professional". (Are they amateur, semi-professional ... etc?) Providing a reference for a statement, when the source does not actually support the statement, is worse than having the sentence with no reference, as it seriously misleads readers who don't follow and check every reference. If we can't trust references to support what it looks like they support, we have serious problems. The new reference is fine.

fellow league team. Your Google search is misleading. Instead, search Google for "fellow league team" as a phrase, in quotes. There are very few results, and some of them are Wikipedia articles about Spanish football players.... It is just not used like this used in English. "Fellow Premiership side" might be ok, for example, but "fellow league side" is not. English is inconsistent, sometimes it's difficult to explain. You don't understand the detail, that's ok, but please listen when someone tries to help you.

Finally, it is very frustrating for me to have small copy edits immediately reverted. You are not a native English speaker, so some of these details might not be clear to you. I suggest you either leave my edits alone, on the basis that I know what I'm doing (and maybe learn from them) or ask me for clarification if you're not sure why I did something. --hippo43 (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, i think you are also very frustrated because i, not being a native of the language, engage in such reversions (for that, i sincerely apologise). About your offer no thanks, it's best for everybody if i walk away (especially for ME, not having fun anymore); about that rephrasing we were looking for in Mr. Gallego's article, i think your suggestion of "was an important part" is great, indeed (however, i see it has been removed again instead of duly rephrased, like i stated before could not care less from now on).

Again, sorry for any inconvenience, all the best --Quite A Character (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't know what the hey I'm still doing here (not your page, nothing personal, I mean WP in general) discussing content, but here it goes: paragraph #3 of Mr. Gallego's Vavel article reads "Con los verdes destaca en su faceta goleadora y se convierte en uno de los referentes ofensivos del equipo", meaning "While at the greens he stands out in the scoring department and becomes one of the team's attacking stalwarts"; if one then clicked the seasonal wikilink, one would see Cornellá did reach the promotion play-offs, falling short at that stage. Like I said, content out or content in, not a care in the world from yours truly anymore...

Elaborating a bit more on your message in my talkpage: our run-in (for lack of a better word, I did not agree with many of your changes, but you also had reasons to correct/improve me) did not drive me away per se, I've been out of the project and its guidelines for years now, just did not realise it fully. Continue the hard work, best wishes --Quite A Character (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)