User talk:Andrewcrawford/Archive 6

Rangers fc 1872-2012. The rangers 2012-
Rangers fc are in the process of being liquidated." The rangers" are not the same club, despite how desperately the fans want it to be so. This is not a break in the clubs history....it's the end. The title of this page should be "rangers fc 1872-2012". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.186.117 (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as sources such as the SFL, SPL and other governing bodies and media sources treat them as such, and the consensus on the project is that is the case then thats the way we treat it. Personal opinion or pov isn't relevant. Blethering  Scot  00:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

What have the medIa got to do with it? Do you believe everything you read? This is nonsense. "The rangers" were founded in 2012. A new club. The old club are in the process of being liquidated. This is not an opinion or a pov. The title of this page is factually incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.114.233 (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * when you learn how business and corprate entities work, and how wikipedia works please come back, wikipedia is based on reliable source, verifabilty, and no original research, if oyu dnt liek it go to rangers forum and shout off wikipedia will not be changing unless the sources change to say new club all the time, fans opinions dnt matter. just for oyu knowledge my own personally opinion is it is new club but my personally opinion doe snot matter on wikipedia, now leave my talk page alone if you only go shut off crap any more crap will be reverted Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Glasgowrangers5stars2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Glasgowrangers5stars2.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) 04:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Rangers live on!!!
Hi Andrewcrawford. I seem to have missed a great deal by being on holiday! Having caught up on reading some of the talk pages and sources, I can see why we have to accept that Rangers is being viewed as a continuation of the Rangers of last season. That said, I am surprised that the Rangers article appears to have been gutted apart from a few small references to this massive event. Rangers has clearly been reformed with the original club/company having entered liquidation, and sources say this quite clearly, but the infobox makes no reference to it being reformed in 2012. Perhaps we will have to wait until 2013 until we get sources that make reference to rangers being reformed in 2012 or 'last year', so until then, so be it. However, it also appears that editors have been systematically removing anything they don't like in the article, such as references to sectarian singing, the Famine Song etc. This is precisely the sort of thing I feared when I first got involved in editing this article: Rangers fans seeking to ensure that the article was written in a way to show Rangers in a favourable light. I'm not sure I really want to get involved again but of course to give in completely allows those biased editors to win. I may make the odd contribution but I'm not convinced there is much point when there are quite active editors who only seem to edit the Rangers article. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I won't disappear completely from the article! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Rangers F.C. records and statistics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bob Ferrier (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) 17:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hidden Sections added to Rangers articles
Andrew, sorry for being curious, but can you explain why you are adding "hidden caterogy for tacking potential articles relating to dispute that has calmed down but ultimate was never resolved" to Rangers-related articles? Why add these tags now for a dispute that isnt even in evidence anymore? The Rangers page has settled down into a "same club" structure, is up to date including ample reference to the saga/2 or 3 detailed sub-articles, and heading thanks mainly to you towards FA GA status. If, purely for arguments sake, in future Rangers win the League Cup and every 3rd party source says "this is Rangers' first ever trophy", then we have an issue to address for certain. However, this clearly may not be so, so why crystal ball it and assume it will? Let sleeping dogs lie would be my advice. Gefetane (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Rangers F.C. records and statistics
Hi, apologies for not providing any reason in my edit summary for the updates to the List of Rangers F.C. records and statistics page. However, all the information that was removed was already on the page so I did not think it was contentious. In hindsight it would be a smart to retain the references. I will restore the references to the last revision by myself but remove the duplicate information. Do you agree? Johnelwaq (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution RFC
Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 08:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Rangers F.C. articles
Category:Rangers F.C. articles, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Civility and your recent comments at the Water transport CFD
I see that in this edit, you called an other user a "git". Please note that doing this is a violation of our civility policy. If you disagree with a user, discuss the issue, don't start name-calling. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BKN, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mighty Max (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) 13:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Computing Talk
You recently reverted a post on a talk page. If I may ask, why? It doesn't appear to meet any of the tests in WP:TPO. — Sowlos (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Rangers ownership
I've found a Telegraph article which confirms that the owner before Murray was Lawrence Marlborough. This Glasgow Herald article should help with the period before that. It might be worth asking at Talk:Rangers F.C. for sources which might stretch further back. —WFC— FL wishlist 19:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Net channels AFD
Hi, Andrew. I am contacting you because you recently left a comment at Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. I have just created another AfD, nominating List of Net channels for deletion. If you are interested, you can leave a comment at Articles for deletion/List of Net channels. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. If interested, see also a new AfD, Articles for deletion/List of StarHub TV and mio TV channels.  Thanks.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Rangers ownership
Hi Andrew. I get your point but most other football club articles have lists of chairman, directors etc, and it seems even more relevant since Walter Smith has now returned in such a role. Sparhelda 13:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

racism in ibrox
Hi, I am dubious to the intentions of sentence about two cases of racism in ibrox. i dont feel like it needs to be there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmac83 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC) So we going to mention it on every football stadium up and down the country where racism as been claimed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmac83 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
MisterShiney   ✉    21:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Jim Traynor page
I was going over it and noticed few sources used are from blogs does wiki accept blogs as sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadSynergy (talk • contribs) 09:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

3rr
In my opinion you have violated the WP:3rr rule at History of Rangers F.C.. While unambiguous vandalism is an exception to the rule, the content your reverting does not qualify as such. I would says its not vandalism, but whether it is or is not, it is not clear enough vandalism for the exception to apply. Please stop reverting. I have issued the other editor a template 3rr warning, but as you were labeling it vandalism, I thought I needed a further explanation. Monty 845  20:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Rangers article
Yeah I'm not reverting anymore letting admin deal with it. I requested temp full protection might be for best for now however worried incase he decides to move on to other pages. BadSynergy (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries as discussion
Continuing thread from User talk:Escape Orbit as it is off-topic from the edit warring of Your comments on EO's talk page seem to imply that leaving a comment in an edit summary is sufficient when reverting another editor. Exactly how could WP:CONSENSUS achieved through edit summaries in reversions?

In any event, WP:EW is not an acceptable solution, which I see you've been engaging in yourself. As a rollbacker, that is particularly problematic. You should be aware that editors who edit war may lose the privilege regardless of the means used to edit war.

Toddst1 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * i rarely use rollbacker because i dnt liek to use it, ther emore effective ways to undo, im assuming you are refering to the reverting i was doing on the history of rangers fc page, which i accepted it would be edit warring however i done it becaus ehte users would not engaged not even on there tlak page in fact they even went and made asock so to me that a vandel. i always use the edit summary to engage the user to the article talk page, if the editor will not go to talk then that usually a person who will push there pov but ill drop out of the discussion i was only trying to be neutral and you have took it personally Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit summaries are not appropriate forums to resolve disputes. From WP:REVTALK:


 * Toddst1 (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rangers F.C., you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pitches and Deficit (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) 11:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Aradioham and the 9-1 Old Firm controversy
Hi! I noticed that user Aradioham is bombarding you with some dubious claims about a Celtic-Rangers friendly in 1888. I just want to point out that his recent "proof" is a scan of a page from a fanzine. It's not a book nor a magazine (as Aradioham claims wrongfully) and it wasn't written by any historian or a professional editor. Please let me remind you that Aradioham's previous "sources" were: another wikipedia entry that he altered HIMSELF, a message board topic and a football fansite. And the latter twos in facts contradicted his claims (look at this one: http://www.scottishleague.net/archive/archive78.htm - it mentions Celtic actually played a league game on that day according to records). And even if that "friendly" actually happened, it was supposed to be a bounce game between reserve sides, so not even an official match. If you take few minutes to check Aradioham's input into wiki so far you're going to find out that he's been spamming for months with irrelevant, poorly written and often plainly wrong data. Almost all of his revisions were reversed for the reasons mentioned above. Also I think you should take some harder measures against this guy as he's obviously a sh*t-stirrer, although in a way I do admire the amount of patience you showed him. Thanks in advance and keep up your good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.63.152 (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Another piece of information re. Rangers
Andrew, I know you like to keep abreast of the facts on this issue, so here's another one to add to the long list. The SFA database shows Rangers FC as one continuous club, with results from last season and this season under the Club Search name of "Rangers F.C.". Here is a general link to the page http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_cup_archive.cfm?page=2056, here is a screen grab showing the relevant information h.ttp://tiny.cc/qdfjqw (remove the first 'dot' from the second link that I inserted into HTTP to get past the filter, when you copy it into the address bar) Gefetane (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Solid state drives
Were you seriously proposing that the statement that SSDs have no disks inside needs to be sourced? Don't you think it qualifies as noncontroversial? Jeh (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * as daft as it sounds yes, if it cant be verified it gets removed plain and simple i suggest you reread these core wikipedia policies wp:truth wp:verifable wp:rs wp:nor and wp:nor i hav enot intentions in edit warring with you over it but be warned since it isnt sourced anyone can remove it and report you for vandelism. Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 22:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (As it says on my talk page, I prefer to have discussions all in the same place. I am watching this page, so please reply here. To this end I have taken the liberty of moving your previous reply here.)


 * So if I add a statement that there are no vacuum tubes in SSDs either, you'll insist on a source for that too?


 * Seriously, you are mistaken on a few points. I think you need to read WP:VERIFY yourself:


 * "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. (emphasis added - jeh)"


 * Note the distinction. You wrote "if it can't be verified it gets removed". But, first, the claim that SSDs contain no disks obviously can be verified. Not only is it part of the definition of the term, the very first reference in that very article confirms this claim in its description of these devices. So, no, we don't need to cite a source for this particular instance of the claim.


 * You see, there is a difference between "needs to be verifiable" and "needs a citation in the article". WP:V allows for this.


 * And second, except for BLP issues, WP:V only states that unsourced material that needs a source may be removed. This material didn't need a source, and even if it did, it isn't required to remove it right away. Even for claims that really should have a citation to a WP:RS, the polite and widely accepted thing to do is to add a "citation needed" template. See template:cn. This is a much less abrasive thing to do to someone's edit rather than simply reverting it.


 * I suppose you could say "well, since I removed it, its verifiability has been challenged so now it does require a source." Yeah, fine. So I go to the work of adding a reference name to one of the refs that's already there, and then cite that same ref from my new text as well. No, it's not much work, but consider: Does it really improve the article to add a reference footnote number to a statement that is as obviously true as this one? Is adding that little footnote number really the best use of my time here? Was it the best use of yours? And will this little challenge you raised over a completely trivial edit and obvious claim make me feel more or less eager to contribute to WP in the future?


 * Also: In my edit I merely noted that despite the term "solid state disk" there are no actual "disks" inside these devices. In your edit comment you said "since they refer to it is a disk we must to [sic]". Well, that is true, but my edit did not remove any reference to the terms "solid state disk" or "electronic disk" from the article, nor even claim that such were wrong. So your edit comment was off point and provided no valid justification for your action.


 * Finally, I must point out that you are wrong about vandalism. The fact is that edits made in good faith are not generally considered vandalism. After reading WP:VERIFY you should probably look at WP:VANDALISM:


 * "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful. (emphasis added - jeh)"


 * You should probably also read WP:AGF to see what "good faith" means and what you are supposed to do about assuming it.


 * In sum: Please be careful about undo'ing others' edits until you are more familiar with the actual prescriptions of things like WP:VERIFY. Consider using the CN template rather than reverting unsourced material, unless it's a BLP issue. Please consider carefully before tossing around words like "vandalism".


 * And you should never have had "intentions of edit-warring", so the statement that you don't have any here is troubling. Why would you need to state such a thing, if not for the possibility that you might have such intentions on another occasion?


 * Your spelling, punctuation, and grammar could use work too—just a suggestion, but be aware: people who can't even write an edit summary without using "to" when they mean "too" don't get taken very seriously here. Jeh (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * if you bothered to look at my user page it clears states i am dsylexic so i dnt need ot improve my spelling and grammer because i cant, that does nto stop me being awikipeida editor just means it makes it harder on me and i have to have otehrs help me.


 * edit warring is in my books where you have a content dispute and since i am not that bothered i aint goign to go down the liens of using the talk page because i have no further interest in keeping persuing the matter, the way i put myself across isnt always clear so dnt assume you know what i mean.


 * also dnt start attacking me for remind you of policices you are intertruping them differently to me and i also dnt liek the fact you are watching everything i am doing to me you seem obsessed becaus ei challenge you Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * and you also assumed i aint assuming good faith but then you acuse me of stuff... if you must know i didnt have aproblem with you adittion because it right but just cause it right doesnt mean it can go on wiki, without the source it should be remvoed Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry but you're still mistaken. It is quite clear that "must be verifiable" (which is what WP:V says) is not equivalent to "must always have a citation in the article, no matter how obviously correct". And that "may be removed" (which is what WP:V says) is not the same as "must be removed". If you want to challenge my interpretation, you could try the talk page at WP:V.


 * This does happen to be a point that raises my hackles, as there are too many editors here who have the same misunderstanding that you did. They apparently think that deleting content that needs an inline source about as much as does "two plus two equals four" is a fine and dandy way for them to "contribute to the encyclopedia." It is not.


 * A content dispute is not "edit warring". See WP:EDITWAR. What you meant, then, was that you did not intend to carry the dispute any further. Ok, that's good.


 * But that brings up my "assuming I know what you mean." I have only your words to go by. If you use words that don't mean what you really mean, then it's not my fault for not knowing what you really mean.


 * Re "watching everything you are doing": when someone misapplies the WP:V policy as above, and most especially when they use the word "vandalism" regarding an edit of mine... yes, I most certainly am going to check on a few of their recent edits and see where else they've behaved similarly. So would many editors. Editors who use allusions to charges of "vandalism" to win a point in a dispute need to be corrected. Even if they simply misunderstand what "vandalism" means here, as you appear to, they need to be corrected, because charges of "vandalism" are very serious. That's one of the reasons editors' edit history is public here, to make it easier to identify patterns of mistaken behavior and offer suggestions for improvement.


 * Re "attacking": Do not assume that a response to your revert that includes no personal attacks whatsoever is an "attack", just because said response is extensive and extensively referenced. I have issued no "attacks". I have said "you're mistaken, and here is why. Also here, here, and there." A statement that you are mistaken is not an attack, and correcting you and offering suggestions for alternatives like the CN template is not an attack. Referring you to WP policy and guideline pages that show how you were mistaken, so that you may learn better, is not an attack.


 * And as for assuming good faith, I did not accuse you of not assuming good faith. I referenced WP:AGF because the quote I pulled from WP:VANDALISM mentioned the term and it seemed reasonable to refer you to the definition. Indeed, I have not only assumed good faith, I assumed you were interested in learning better. That's why I gave all the references and careful (though lengthy) explanations.


 * Finally, re writing ability: As I said before, "just a suggestion" and I never said you couldn't contribute to WP. Jeh (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I apogolise then, i am to use to editors jumping down my back about spelling and grammer etc, and when i am trying to justify why i have done something because my explaining isnt always the best they then looking over wha ti have done like i am in the wrong, i dnt mind people correcting me at the end of the day i am human and i aint perfect i make mistakes just sometimes it seems like the way it is done is likely i am being questioned and assumed not to be doing things in good faith. again i apogolise for getting the wrong end of the stick and that mostly my fault because my ability to interupt things is poor Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 13:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism
Hi Andrew having some bother with this editor as you can see from his contribution log, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WikiInquiry. I left note on his talk page but hasn't stopped him continuing to go through many pages changing them. I have been reverting them however won't be on wiki all night. What's the best course of action here? BadSynergy (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rangers F.C., you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages George Young and David Weir (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) 11:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Jab843 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Jab843 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Being bold
Hi Andrewcrawford. I have to say that on any other article what I did would not be regarded as bold - but because it is the Rangers article it is. All I did was move exactly the same information to a more appropriate place in the article, but that it too radical for some. Cheers anyway Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing seems to have happened regarding the subject of TV episodes since we last "spoke" ... On the matter of being bold, I have taken the liberty of a small adjustment to prevent the run of your userboxes into the talkback messages—trust you don't think I am out of order. Cheers! –&#32; –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 17:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC) –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 23:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good afternoon Andrew,
 * Ive got no problems with edits that are improvements :) visual looking i prefer it read better makes it easier on me, as for the topic, unfortnally it not always going to get replies, the next course of action if you still feel so strongly about it, would be to create a request for comment Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 23:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. I seem to be controlling the IPs involved at the moment, so shall wait and see. Cheers! –&#32;

Dyslexia Notice
I love your dyslexia notice on your user page. The untold joking/ribbing/laughing/made fun of that I went and go thru. I've been using email since 1989. The misery of email programs with no check spelling feature was not fun. Bgwhite (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hi Andrewcrawford. When an editor makes the same edit 3 times in the space of 9 hours all in the same calendar day - on an article with a one revert rule - does that not count as edit warring? I don't want to respond to such behaviour in kind, but don't believe editors should be allowed to get their own way just because they ignore the rules of the community. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)