User talk:BadSynergy/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Rangers FC club dead or not". Thank you. -- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC
Just keep a eye on what you do, you dnt want ot break 3rr but all that can be done is keep reloading it for page proctetion ie full the more users who request the more constant content dispute they will have to do it. im movign the dispute to the next level if we dnt all get a greement soon it will eventally get to arbcom an they will take out of everyone hnds and make decision and then it will be set in stone and if reqire full proctection for indefintively. just say within polocies there is lot of editors who could get bans for things there doing that why i have step back now i am leaving to higher up officals but it takes tie to get there Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem a little confused...
Hi

You seem unable to answer the basic question I am asking - why does Sevco Scotland need to apply for SFA membership when Rangers FC already has SFA membership? Let me tell you the answer - it's because they are different clubs. Sevco Scotland want to become a club so that when Rangers FC is liquidated, the 'new' Rangers (ie whatever name Sevco Scotland becomes) can continue.

As for you most recent reply, "Sevco need to have membership to the countrys football association. It's why Rangers were given 3 year ban from Europe because it's in their rules you have to have been a member for 3 consecutive years" - this still does not explain why Sevco need to have membership in addition to Rangers FC having membership, if - as you claim - Sevco now runs Rangers FC and Rangers FC is a member of the SFA.

Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So you don't understand the need for Rangers' new company to have a SFA membership? This is why a CVA was preferred as it would save ban from European football, switching player registrations etc. As HMRC and BDO put it, the business side of Rangers is changing, while the football side continues on. But like I told Superbhoy unless we get a clear, definitive source there was always be a dispute over RFC. Hopefully over the coming weeks that will happen and I will support it either way BadSynergy (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record Rangers were not given a ban from European competition. They are ineligible. There is a difference. UEFA regard them as a new club. To suggest otherwise if factually incorrect and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicEagle67 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers
I know no matter what is done on teh talk pag eno consensus will come become ther eis two agenda, rangers fans not willign to potential accept the club might have died and new club formed, and the rival fans determine to makea mockery of the sitution and not accept the club might sitll be alive. so it really needs external output. the request for comment is gettin copyedited for me since i am crap at english, and i wont put it live until after the sfl decision, if that puts it on hold longer i will delay it again i want to get as many sources as i can and also to wait until it more clearly a decision is in the press-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Hi BD. I havent been as active on wikipedia for the last few months but i'm glad you are still involved. I think I know exactly the reason why you have asked me this but it's a difficult question to answer. Unless a user has directly violated any of the edit warring guidelines then its difficult to seek outside help. The Rangers dispute (which I see you have been highly involved) has become out of control on wikipedia with many users having an agenda. If you feel the need then a detailed note with diffs and examples could be added to the ANI noticeboard. I see there is already a discussion here. I'm sorry this is the only advice I can give you at this time. Keep believing and dont get dragged into an edit war. Monkeymanman (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sadly at this stage it looks like this may drag on all the way until the situation with the SFA has been fully confirmed and reported. Its shocking it will have taken a month for the article to be fixed, but if at that stage it is resolved its better late than never. If rangers are playing a match and a small number of editors are still blocking the situation being resolved then im going to take it to an admins noticeboard. But at this stage it doesnt help that quite a few media sources continue to inaccurately say new club when they mean new company. Getting progress on wikipedia is sadly slow and tiring, but its worth it in the end when the articles are actually fixed. Just have to keep at it, not get provoked into crossing the line on the talk page or through edit wars with articles, and not get so fed up you walk away and give up. Lights at the end of the tunnel, its just a very slow lane.:\. Sorry for butting in lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C. trying to get a consensus
Please review your response and update it accordingly if required witht he updated question that is more neutral-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page
I don't see it as a problem. I just like to keep my talk page intact unless its vandalism, so i can archive it in full. B  S  21:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Reference
No problem i realised i had made a mistake on it as well forgot a bracket. Easiest way to add references is with prove it, at least i find it easy. If you dont use it you can enable it under My Preferences, Gadgets, Editing. Blethering  Scot  19:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep an eye on the talk pages for discussions that come up but generally just edit as you normally do. If you create pages add them to the new page section just helps to keep track of what everyone is doing. If you are ever board the season articles are always needing help being updated usually just me and duck. They aren't the best at the moment as a little behind and tricky with new signings and things. Blethering   Scot  23:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How you getting on, meant to add if there is even the stupidest question in the world feel free to ask me it i don't mind at all. Did you try the gadget. Blethering  Scot  00:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject football
Hi BadSynergy, to be honest you can do whatever you feel like. The only thing required to be a member if I recall correctly is to make one football related edit a year. But there are loads of things you can do. You can write about players or update season articles or write about clubs. Or just generally go around and tidy thingd up, make sure articles are at a decent standard. Keeping an eye on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football can also be helpful to find out new things. I think my best ability is writing so feel free to ask me about anything to do with that. User:DUCKISJAMMMY and User:Blethering Scot do a lot of work in behind the scenes stuff like keeping season articles up to date and things like that. So you can also ask them if you need help. There is also lots of vandalism, particularly with the Old Firm, so putting lots of articles on your watchlist can be helpful. But in general I would say just start editing a broad variety of things, find out which ones you like and dislike and then just do the things you enjoy most. I think you'll find that if you put a little bit of effort in you can make a pretty big differnece in a short space of time. Adam4267 (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Templates are mainly so all things (squads etc) look the same, and also so you don't have to make a new table each time you want to put the information in a page. Adam4267 (talk) 16:44, 30 July 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) 12:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

jim tanyor
generally no but there is some expections, it depends what it is getting used for check at reliable sources noticeboard they will review it and say if it appiorate Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 09:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

3rr on History of Rangers F.C.
I wanted to warn you that you have violated WP:3rr on History of Rangers F.C.. The edits you are reverting are not obvious enough vandalism to qualify for the vandalism exception to the 3rr rule. While it can be frustrating dealing with an editor who refuses to abide by consensus, unless there is a really compelling policy reason, such as WP:BLP for why the edit must remain out, it is not appropriate to edit war over it. Please don't resume edit warring there when MagicEagle67's block expires, if they start up again report them to an appropriate admin noticeboard. Monty 845  21:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Rangers article
Friendly advice stop reverting admin is now dealign with it, and it seems they have created a new accoutn to avoid the ban which then goes into sockpuppetery Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Your confusion
You left a message on my talk page indicating that you have undone one or more of my recent contributions because they do not appear constructive. I think you made a mistake and I have some questions.

Specifically, what aspects of my contributions are not constructive? On what basis can you support your generalization? My contributions were based on direct evidence from articles from BBC online. Given that, I would anticipate your ability to provide evidence to support the removal of the specific statements I added. If not, I will repost. Thanks!

DanielPlainfield (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Avoiding Characterization
YOUR REPLY: I found it amusing your choice of headline, especially when your edits to aforementioned pages and what you said on my talk page display a certain bias. I'll keep this brief, when you add sources they are backing up what you have put. You wrote, 'Murray's 23-year association with the liquidated Rangers football club is notable for the success the team had on the field as well as the financial challenges that ultimately led to its liquidation in 2012 and the end of its 140 year history.' And I as pointed out to you nowhere in the source you provided did it say, 'end of its 140 year history'. That's your POV and that is why it was reverted.

MY REPLY: I appreciate the dialogue, Bad Synergy, but in discussing accuracy, it's useful to avoid characterization. Given my efforts to ascertain stated facts from reliable sources, I would appreciate any efforts you can make to avoid characterizing what you perceive to be my behavior or intentions. In this case, you might have suggested that I find a source to establish the veracity of the liquidation of the oldco, which is in the process of being liquidated, and I will do that. I think I established the idea that in considering Sir David's business dealings, the liquidation of a company he ran for a number of years is the relevant, and factually established, idea to consider. That's the point of the article, as is the way he ran that company, which has something to do with the company's liquidation. I will be sure to make the distinctions between oldco and sevco clear when I revise. Not sure why these facts about an old, liquidated company, and a brand new company are bias. It's fact.

YOUR REPLY: Same can again be said about changes made to McCoist page. I mentioned consensus for a reason it took many months, with constant debating to reach our decision on the status of Rangers FC. That is why I mentioned taking issues you have to talk pages first rather than just changing pages. BadSynergy (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

MY REPLY: I don't think the nuances of any situation can be categorically dismissed with the sweeping generalization you make here. The same cannot be said again, as you suggest.

McCoist's documented deliberation over his managerial career is the point of the entry, not whether you, or anyone else, have had a debate about the status of Rangers FC. McCoist had issues with the guy who was developing a new team around the assets of the old company. You appear to be suggesting that the comment is about the oldco and secco. Two different things. Team is one thing, company is another.

DanielPlainfield (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"vandalism" on Lee McCulloch
The revisions you are making to Lee McCulloch and Ally McCoist by the user, are they indeed vandalism or is the user just not aware about sourcing material?? Please do not dissuade new users... Jab843 (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Jab843 (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey BadSynergy; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Chasbo
Ok, you add it with your wording and we'll see if we are in agreement. Do you think it needs something about this 137k that Whytey fired into Imran Ahmad's mum's bank account? 176.253.91.57 (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High. The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)