User talk:Andrewcrawford/Archive 5

New points
If you take a look at Winnipeg Jets, Winnipeg Jets (1972–96), Ottawa Senators (original), and Ottawa Senators those articles may help. When a company sells assets some of those are copyrights and trade marks. There is also a thing called 'chicken quota' in Marketing_board. Although these are not tangible things they do have great value. Anyone that owns them technically owns the club. No one has a right to create a new club until the copyrights expire in 50-100 years depending. In that case they actually own a club or the legal permission to sell eggs in Canada even though they don't own any players or chickens. You may have the same with limited taxi permits there. You need the permit but not a car to call yourself a taxi. Many here lease the permits to the car owners. In this sense a club is never truly 'dead' until all rights expire and they are not renewed. I don't know if these points have been brought up. You may wish to just ask admin to put a 'future uncertain' statement in and lock the article until a source is found that shows the intentions of the new owner of the rights.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you find an RS that the club's name is copyright/trademark protected, who owns it, and whether their intentions are known? You could add an edit request to that effect. Admin may get irritated at so many requests and just decide on a neutral statement themselves. Has it been brought up at ANI?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is the main problem with consensus. If it isn't reached then admin will rarely make any changes. If you find one that agrees with a neutral 'uncertain future' statement then they may just edit it in themselves. You could also try bureaucrats. I don't think my input will help much because it will just be one more voice in consensus. I see in your RfC that you don't have a third option for 'future uncertain statement and wording' type thing. It may help to add that and mention that only one entity has the rights to the club at any one time and their intentions are all that should be used as sources, not speculation sources from sports news, etc. If the rights have changed hands often that may be a sign that the holders are trying to profit by buying/selling them until bought by an entity that will try to fund a viable club.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is the vandalism of Rangers FC page being permitted?
I'm astonished that the vandalism of the Rangers FC, that is currently giving the utterly absurd impression that Rangers - the club dominating the Scottish sports news agenda day in day out - no longer exists, is being allowed to continue.

I understand the individual responsible has some kind of editor status, but surely that does not allow him to vandalise articles as he sees fit until another editor can re-correct the abuse?

When will this nonsense end? Gefetane (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I know the media hasn't been the most helpful
But I did notice the Scottish Sun has Rangers founded 1873, chairman Murray etc adding this along with SFL could add credence to the ones who say its same club. BadSynergy (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 12:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused by your actions...
Hi Andrewcrawford. I'm confused by you reverting my changes to the Rangers article in the sandbox. I though the idea was to try to produce a version that could serve as a replacement article if protection is lifted from the real article. Yet you have reverted my changes saying that the version in the sandbox is not based on consensus. In that case, is there any point is me editing it if only those who share your views are permitted to change it?

I do not think recent changes bode well for the prospect of avoiding edit warring once protection is lifted. Firstly the article was changed from 'was' to 'is' when no consunsus for that had been established. Now the replacement article is not meant to be based on consensus! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

compromise way forward
Hi Andrewcrawford. In my experience of wikipedia, getting a consensus usually involves a degree of compromise to find something that works for the different sides in any disagreement. I hope that a statement that 'some view Rangers as the same club' and 'others disagree' may be a way of allowing both sides to accept what the article contains. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the reality is that die-hard Rangers fans will always believe that Rangers is the same club as founded 140 years ago, with history intact, and die-hard anti-Rangers fans will always believe that Rangers died in 2012 and that this is a new club prtending to be a continuation. I hope that by not taking one side or the other, but by trying to show that reliable sources support both views, we can construct an article that is accurate, reliable and stable from being vandalised by one 'side' that feels the article is wrong. Thanks for your efforts in this. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Lee McCulloch
I've fixed the page for Lee McCulloch to fix the grammar and make it up to date and as impartial as I can. If that's not good enough then we can't update it at all and it'd gonna be frozen as of the end of last season.VampireKilla (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I though you'd appreciate this...
Hi Andrewcrawford. I thought you would appreciate the way the Sunday Herald dealt with the date of Rangers' formation....

Of course, the article does go on to talk about Rangers' history which may support the earlier formation date, but the Rangers section comes after Stirling Albion which it shouldn't if strictly alphabetical...unless the are dealing with 'The Rangers FC', which favours the 2012 date!

So some mainstream sources do not want to call whether it is the same club or a new club. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the exact wording of the section:


 * "Rangers Formed: Touchy subject . . . with possible dates of 1872 or 2012


 * Ground: Ibrox Are still waiting on full SFA membership after only being given a conditional version. Aren't we all? Knocked on the door of the SPL and First Division but have been made to start out here in the Third. They intend to make their stay a brief one. Rangers' history does not need recounting, although the newco may be left with an abridged version depending on the outcome of the investigation into illegal use of EBTs. They come with an intrepid Sky crew charged with documenting their time in uncharted territory."


 * Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I really don't know how any request should be worded. There appears to be no consensus to delete or merge the Newco Rangers article. Similarly, editors will not accept Rangers FC being about the club up to 2012. If protection is lifted, edit warring will break out. I am also not confident that it will be possible to get consensus to move towards an agreed single article that takes a neutral view in the same club/new club dispute. The only question I can think appropriate would be 'any advice on how we can move forward when the sources support two completely opposite views?' Thanks for trying! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk)
 * I don't usually spend so much time on a single article or area, but to me this is too important to just 'give up'. We can not allow wikipedia to be distorted by those trying to force their biases or opinions onto articles. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Topic Bans
Hi Andrewcrawford. I'm not sure topic bans will help achieve a genuine consensus - it would lead to the appearance of a consensus from those allowed to participate. However, longer term, by not resolving the underlying issue, it would merely postpone the dispute. I suspect that getting a draft consensus article as good as possible is still the best way to try to move things forwards, and then perhaps even directly invite input from those editors you have identified. Once people see the final draft, they may feel it is better to reach compromise than have two articles that please no one. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

first paragraph
As it happens, I don't think it will ever be 'clear' so I'd prefer something more straightforward such as: "While the club sees itself as a continuation of the club officially founded in 1873, others view the relaunched Rangers as a new club."

Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I really think the mentioning of this dispute, especially within the opening paragraph (as opposed to a sub-section) where it is inappropriate and out of place, is in reality serving to "fan the flames" of this dispute, of which progress seemed to be being made towards consensus. I would urge reconsideration of these sentences and ask whether "The club was relaunched in 2012 after he previous incarnation entered liquidation on 14th June" is not sufficient detail for an introductory paragraph, in regard to the dispute being referenced in a sub-section such as the "Relaunched Club" one. Thanks again for your efforts.Gefetane (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, given the sensitivities clearly at play within this case, the layout of any reference to the dispute is fundamental. I noted BritishWatcher in the talk page also said he could possibly accept such a reference, but only outwith the introductory paragraph, a sub-section such as the "Relaunched Club..." being the most likely candidate. Cheers.Gefetane (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew I have posted a re-write of the identity dispute which I think reads a little more smoothly, whilst referencing both sides of the dispute with quotes of use of "new club", and the opposing view from Charles Green. Perhaps another source or two could be added, but in terms of referencing the dispute, I think this fits the bill. All the best. Gefetane (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Going on holiday!!!
Hi Andrewcrawford. Not sure how much more I can do if any for the next few weeks - wife has just got us a holiday! However a few quick comments about a combined article: If it is to satisy both sides, it will have to find ways round a couple of issues, Firstly the honours section, records section - the layout at present suggests 'same club'. Perhaps we need section headings like '1872-2012' or 'prior to relaunch' but at present it would be unacceptable to those who believe it is a new club. Secondly having a previous season suggests same club - perhaps a note is required explaining previos season was prior to relaunch. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rangers FC is not an article about two different clubs, the adoption of one all-encompassing article implies - superficially at least - it is a continuation of the club, if not the same club per se. Dividing up history, pretending 2011-12 was not the "previous season", is playing speculative games that will only result in more warring and a drawing out of this whole affair, which needs rectifying asap now Rangers are playing again. If the time comes that Rangers do win a trophy, then whatever dispute arises it will be treated in the same way by seeking reliable sources and consensus if necessary. Hopefully with similarly fair-minded individuals rather than compromise averse trench diggers that football seems to attract!
 * By the way, for models of the oldco/liquidation/newco article, these existing models - Leeds United Football Club Limited and Middlesbrough: Survival from Liquidation) - should be of use. Thanks for all your efforts Andrew.Gefetane (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, I am surprised you have sought to adjust the history section of the Rangers article. Sub-dividing implies that there is no continuation of history, which is not only unjustified by consensus or sources, but is also guaranteed not to be accepted by one half of this dispute, including myself. This simply is not a problem for now, but for if Rangers win another trophy and the debate about "is this added to their historical tally" becomes relevant. Then, we consult the sources and act accordingly. Prior to that eventuality, and mindful of the need to get this article approved and live asap, venturing into this no mans land is unnecessary. I hope you agree we should not derail the progress made so far if it can be avoided.Gefetane (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, I accept that adding trophies to the current honours list would be seen as favouring the same club side, but that is a future scenario that need not have a contentious "solution" applied to the article now. Leave it as it is, and cross that bridge when we come to it.Gefetane (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Be Warned - Rangers FC - an attempt to push through a controversial 'same club' approach
Hello. You have contributed to the Newco Rangers article so I thought yuou should be made aware that an attempt is being made to undermine this article by pushing through a 'same club' approach despite many of us believing this is heavily biased and very selective use of the sources. You may wish to follow what is proposed at the Talk:Rangers F.C/Sandbox. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry About The Language Andrew But It Isn't A New Club. It's A New Company With 140 Years Of History Continuing! The History Is Incorporated In The Club. E.G. If I Had A Cereal Box Company, It Liquidated, I'd Still Have The Cereal Boxes You Can't Liquidate That, Because It's Transparent. Same As The Stadium, The Players, Coaches, Training Ground. IT'S ALL STILL THERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aradioham (talk • contribs) 15:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well It NEEDS To Be Deleted Andrew, Got 6 Million Angry Rangers Fans Complaining About The Page. Just Stick With The Old Rangers Page. If You Don't Believe That Rangers Are The Same Football Club & Keep Their 140 Year History, Then Look At ALL The Links On Here >>> http://www.facebook.com/GlasgowRangersFcHasNotBeenLiquidated?ref=hl Aradioham (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Advice" (Rangers FC)
FYI, I've moved your thread (titled "Advice") from WT:MC to WT:RFM because it is the latter page which exists to discuss specific disputes. Regards, AGK  [•] 23:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Rangers Sandbox
I dont have a great deal of time as really busy with all the season articles, kind of snowed under as no one else is doing them at the moment and they all need majorly updated. If you give me a link i will take a look however. Blethering  Scot  23:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue is see is here: As a result of liquidation of The Rangers Football Club plc, the extent to which the relaunched Rangers can be regarded as a continuation of the club officially founded in 1873 has been interpreted differently. The Rangers Football Club, owned by Sevco Scotland Ltd, has been described as a "new club", whilst Chief Executive Charles Green has maintained "this is still Rangers". Also The Rangers in lead.


 * You need to use sources such as the SPL chairman explaining they are the same club and possibly the SFL treating them as the same. Not just the owner of the club also i am not sure its clear enough that its the same membership number not a new one as Phoenix usually takes, its says transfer but could be clearer i.e. indicating they are the same to SFA although that is covered with punishments because the SFA are allowing the history of the club to remain they must take punishment. Sorry if thats mentioned more in detail somewhere. In regards to The Rangers, Celtic are also The Celtic but thats not the name the club use thats got more to do with the company, to me the lead should be Rangers Football club with The football club in the infobox, that might be controversial so not a big issue.


 * Ive not had too much time tonight but will take a detailed read tomorrow night. Blethering  Scot  00:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Been thinking how about The Rangers Football Club, owned by Sevco Scotland Ltd, has been described as a "new club", whilst the Scottish Football authorities and Chief Executive Charles Green has maintained "this is still Rangers". Blethering  Scot  11:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the primary source and the statement is already in the article it was only an attempt to actually show a continuation and improve the flimsy ref that was already included. Your sandbox is under referenced on key points if your trying to show continuation you need to beef it up as the moment not enough. Its a suggestion up to you whether you improve it. Blethering  Scot  11:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Statement half way down. Meanwhile, club owners Sevco Scotland Limited is changing its name to The Rangers Football Club Limited. A in that differentiates club and company and B changing company name. Blethering  Scot  12:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That one is recent as in literally now. However the original refs i was referring to are the ones from the SPL where Neil Doncaster states they are the same club, the SFL showing full history of the club and the SFA. Sources are already been banded about on talk page and others are available. That sentence just needs beefed up to show that is not Just Charles Green that believes they are the same. Blethering  Scot  12:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok here it goes, 2012–13 in Scottish football List of Scottish football transfers summer 2012, 2012–13 Scottish Third Division, 2012–13 Annan Athletic F.C. season, 2012–13 Berwick Rangers F.C. season, 2012–13 Clyde F.C. season, 2012–13 East Stirlingshire F.C. season, 2012–13 Elgin City F.C. season, 2012–13 Montrose F.C. season, 2012–13 Peterhead F.C. season, 2012–13 Queen's Park F.C. season, 2012–13 Stirling Albion F.C. season, 2012–13 East Fife F.C. season, essentially any club that is due to play them one's Rangers has already been listed as playing already had a wee bit of problems so they should be listed Not directly related but affected. You can add Ian Black (footballer born 1985), Dean Shiels and Craig Beattie and any other player linked or signs for them. Blethering  Scot  22:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also affects 2011–12 Scottish Premier League‎ and 2012–13 Scottish Premier League. Blethering  Scot  22:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Rangers F.C./sandbox


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please rewrite your statement; I cannot understand it, especially as the page has never been protected. Nyttend (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Now that I understand what's going on, I don't think that it should be deleted, simply because temporary pages like this are generally not deleted.  If you had requested a history merge immediately after the end of protection, it would have worked well, but there are now too many edits for that to be feasible.  Nyttend (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

a club can be liquidated
Replied on mny page DeCausa (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Posted a reply to your last post. DeCausa (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

But how can u edit the rangers page if it is locked? And what things would i be banned for? Aradioham (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont get what u mean because this page >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangers_F.C. Is semi protected. I cant change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aradioham (talk • contribs) 09:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus
Seen as i haven't being paying enough attention i only just noticed that the Rangers article was now one. How did the deadlock break. Blethering  Scot  00:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well what ever way it happened its a positive outcome. Blethering  Scot  20:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Again Andrew, It's Aradioham (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Here :) Just Wandering, Do You Run The Rangers F.C. Wiki Page Or Is It Somebody Else Who Runs It?

Right so, can i please be an administrator of it andy? Aradioham (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't checked in for a while, and am pleased to see that everything seems to be reverting back to what we thought should happen. I guess the beginning of the football season clarified things for many. Good work on trying to keep it sane. Your a better man than I! Nfitz (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Andrew, I got an invite to the Formal mediation of Rangers FC but as the article seems to heading in the right direction through consensus, and given my lack of knowledge on Wiki processes, I was woindering if I need to participate? I guess I'm asking if it's just a case of 'blessing' what has been drafted to date or if it could still go back to a dispute? Regards S2mhunter (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB rev8267
You can now download a newer AWB version from http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ It deals better with pages containing images. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Findlay tape
I'm afraid I couldn't find it. However, the source uses quotation marks and therefore is claiming what Findlay said. I doubt he will be taking legal action against wikipedia if he didn't against the BBC! Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:Scripts
That's no problem at all; all you need to do is follow the steps at the top here for dashes and here for the date script. Those links explain the scripts in a better way than I can, haha! Craig (talk)  16:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for that. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't report him - I checked his contributions page to see where he had posted and then added my own comment under his. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bald_Zebra - I found it by checking Ricky's contributions. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Hi. I noticed this edit you made. Please be aware that reverting due to your opinion that there is "no consensus" for a particular change is not part of the WP:BRD cycle, and instead give an actual reason when reverting. WP:DRNC is an essay that will give you more of an idea why this is wrong. Reverting without a real reason causes friction and frustration, and makes assuming good faith of others more difficult. Please do not do this again. Thank you. --John (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

moshead and consensus
moshead does not say sectarainism should be it own heading, and consensus that it part of supporters is on the talk pagre and has been for a while, so you will be edit warring with other editors who will revert-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 09:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest taking this to article talk. Please heed the message above. --John (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * i suggest you dnt threaten me as admin, i gave a reason for reverting, because you hide changes under the MOSHEAD, consensus can change and did if you bothered to read the article talk page oyu would have seen that just cause it doesnt suit you doesnt matter you need to gaina consensus to change it now-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 09:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear that I am not directly threatening you with my own admin tools; for me to block you or remove your rollbacker right would be in breach of WP:INVOLVED. However it is only fair to warn you that if you continue to edit in breach of policy it is likely that another admin is likely to take an interest. It is in your hands; I strongly suggest you act with care and thought going forward. By blind-reverting and the assumptions of bad faith you have made you have got off to a bad start with me. I do not hold grudges and if you start acting according to our norms you will be fine. --John (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * mmm i just took a read at those policies and you are goign agains tthem to, you have not bothered to check the article talk page archives to see consensus has changed, and i consider it a threat because your saying i never gave a godo reason no consensus is agodo reason but hey you do as oyu want i dnt care im not goign to bother sitting arguing with you about it im more intereted in bringing the article to FA but that goign to fail with that sectionbut if i have done the rest of the work then the problem is for everyone to sort out-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 09:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Refs
It lists the domestic honours just like we do and ive checked them and they match exactly. For Record attendance it agrees 118,567 v Celtic 1939, Record victory 14-2 Blairgowrie 1934 does mot mention league like we do, record defeat 2-10 Airdrieonians 1886.

My other source covers more Attendance 118,567 v Celtic 2 January 1939 it states record victory was in the Scottish cup 14-2 against Blairgowrie 20 January 1934, most goals scored Ally Mcoist 355 1985-98. Unfortunately it then disagrees with us on a few points Most capped players whilst at the club it says Ally Mcoist with 60, most league apperances it says John Greig with 496 between 1962-78 and top goalscorer in one season it states Sam English 44 1931-32 so you will need to look into those. Ive checked yearbooks going further back as well and they state the same.

Unfortunately i have tried to use it for the European honours but its virtually impossible to decipher it definitely agrees with the Uefa Cup runners up i think it agrees on the Cup winners cup but its not overly clear. You could however source to the first source but change pages to 95-103 its spread over pages as covers all scottish teams by year.

Blethering  Scot  13:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean could you explain, however re Frank de Boer the figure in article is wrong he made 112 appearances overall but was only with the club for a year of that so clearly never made those appearances whilst with club. Re Mcoist figure ours says 61 but you could check via Sfa site when he made those apps. Blethering  Scot  13:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Think i understand it only covers the ones i mentioned. I do have other books but not got time to dig out at the mo they may back up more but will have a look when i can. Blethering  Scot  13:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't cover the majority of the records only the ones i specifically mentioned to each source, although they do cover all of the honours section. Ill have a look but need to do some season articles first. Blethering   Scot  15:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It will probably be late tonight or tomorrow but will do. Blethering  Scot  15:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

1972 European Super Cup
Just to let you know, the 1972 Super Cup was not sanctioned by UEFA due to Rangers serviving a one year ban for trouble caused by their supporters at the Cup-Winners Cup Final - check 1972 European Super Cup for more details. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Did it say that the 1972 Super Cup was not recognised by UEFA? If it did say that, then the Runner-up position is also not official recognised. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to look around for reliable sources on this - there appear to be lots of sites suggesting that 1972 was unofficial because of Rangers ban, such as Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * |Another for 'unofficial' Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Even Rangers own website does not list the 1972 runners-up result in its list of honours, but it does list other European level runners-up results. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A BBC article confirms that Rangers did get a one year ban - it states the following "Rangers were handed a two-year ban by UEFA for their fans' poor behaviour. Waddell succeeded in getting this reduced to one year, meaning Rangers could not defend their trophy." Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to stalk but here's another article . There is actually a page on wiki about this 1972 European Cup Winners' Cup Final riots. Adam4267 (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. Didn't know if you knew about the riots page so thought I'd point it out. It seems like they did get banned though, even if UEFA don't say that. Cheers Adam4267 (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disappointed.
I noted your contribution to this attack on my character, containing such nonsense as "A user has taken it upon himself to 'clean up' Wikipedia by removing all the negative stuff about Rangers and adding negative stuff about Celtic". The fact you have seen first hand that the nature of my edits has always been to retain content through concise rewording, only removing irrelevant unnecessary material (like the "other clubs called Rangers huns" stuff from the RANGERS sectarianism section), yet you still see fit to chime with Adam's outrageous violation of WP:NPA is quite saddening. Following a neutral observer commenting "Those latest additions are sourced and verifiable and seem to be taking the article towards a more NPOV to me", you even contradict yourself by stating that my content was "fine and sourced", before wandering off on some erroneous speculation implying fanciful 'agendas', deriding my long terms contributions - often echoing your own perspectives - to improving the Rangers FC article in quite an offensive manner. An explanation, if not an apology, would be most welcome. Cheers.Gefetane (talk) 09:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response. My advice would be judge content on content's merits. You seem to be indulging in speculation regarding my motives when really, besides the fact its erroneous, this is totally irrelevant to what Wikipedia is really about - reliable content. You seem to say "the content was fine but you only did it because of x,y,z". Firstly, you don't really know why I added content, you are guessing. Secondly, it doesn't matter why content was added, if the content is appropriate it stays, if it isn't it goes. If Adolf Hitler contributed to an article, providing his additions were relevant, worthy, well-sourced, NPOV etc, they'd stand! I sometimes wonder why certain editors have behaved in certain ways during the last few weeks, but I avoid questioning them with stuff like "you must be really hate Rangers" etc.. because i'm in no position to really know, and its pointless because if the stuff is suitable it'll stay on its merits anyway. Anyway, time to lay the matter to rest. Keep up your good work improving articles. Gefetane (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Some advice
Hi Andy. Just my take on the recent goings on at Celtic F.C supporters. I think this is a good example of why there should be stronger sanctions against canvassing on wikipedia. I'm pleaed to see ypu apoligised to Getefane, who didn't deserve the abuse heaped on him. I can asure you I'm not the sock puppet from the Rangers pages you seem to think and would suggest refaining from that sort of talk in future unless you have clear evidence. I think the central point is though that both yourself and bletheringscot came ino this as a result of blatant canvassing from adam4267 as far as I can make out. Ironically, you originally said the edit was "fine and sourced" before going 'on message', but anyway, as a result of this canvassing the two of you appeared on this page.

The problem here is that as you both work closely with adam4267 on the football pages, where he clearly does a good job, I think you both had a conflict of interest and didn't treat this neutrally. My advice for the future would be don't respond to canvassing.

In any case,the reason I intentionally broke the 3RR rule on this page was actually to bring attention to what i thought was some underhand goings on with regard to canvassing, with the end result that adam4267, who has had a topic ban on this page previously, was able to hide behind other editors and didn't need to justify his edits, which I'm sure given his history on this page was very convenient. All I would ask for is that you're more careful in this regard in future.220.255.1.171 (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Another Article to Consider Updating on Rangers FC?
Hi Andrew, I came across this and wondered if it was already in your list of those to consider updating in the event the Rangers FC dispute is resolved as the same club. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraft_400, where it states "The tune is sung by The Green Brigade, a Celtic Football Club ultras supporters group, in reference to the death of their former rivals, Rangers FC and their reformation as Newco Rangers." Regards S2mhunter (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24
Hi. When you recently edited Rangers F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

no problem, i dont have time to edit it again at the moment - but the that section does contain alot of duplicate information, perhaps if you have time you can use my edits as a references to make similar changes, bu with citations intact? Ricky072 (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Glasgowrangersloinbadge.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Glasgowrangersloinbadge.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rfcbadge.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Rfcbadge.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rfc5starbadge.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Rfc5starbadge.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Andrewcrawford. I'm afraid I don't understand what you really intend. Are you wanting an article that traces the ownership of the club? This is not so straightforward as people own clubs by owning shares in the club - ie in its corporate identity. I can't see what such an article will tell us that is not aleady covered in existing articles.

That said, revert what I've done and I won't edit war! I'm much more concerned by the way Ricky072 has been systematically removing any content that shows any negative aspect to Rangers and now recently, is beginning to add negative content to the Celtic article. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)