User talk:Gefetane

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 ) 16:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandelism
Unfortnally what the editors has done is not seen as vandelism by wikipedia policies, however that does not mean they have not borke wikipedia rules or went against the foundmental rules of wikipedia ie consensus, verfiabilty, and reliable source. Even though they have done this there is other rules that prevent it being undone so easily withouta new consensus which they might or might not have known. the only way to properly fix it is to get anew consensus which i am trying to do before contunie the dispute resolution process. something else oyu have to realise the media of which are deemed reliable state both the club is liquidated and it the same club we cant say ok this one is right over that one we have to prove the source is wrong which isnt easy when nitehr side is willing to accep tthey could be wrong, i know you are probally hurting from all this but wikipedia can not takes side, to fix it we have to go thorugh the proper channels so when it decided then we can look to full proctection if it get altered again against consensus if not clear already i used to support the club but in my view it is dead or will be once liqudiation is finsihed, but as wikipedian i can be unbias and i realise the sitution is not clear cut and both sides are right that reliable sources say it is dead and alive in some cases in the same sentenace it nota easy one to fix but i will contunie the process untila proper conesus from wider community is gained but be warned that oculd be that the wider coimmunity say it is liqudiated i have no contorl over this-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 21:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The situation is clear cut, that is the whole point why those changes were so unjustified. Football clubs that undergo oldco/liquidation/newco processes still exist with a continuity of club identity AND retain one wikipedia page per club. If you cannot recognise that certain media individuals use of terms like 'new club' or 'old club' are opinion that has no bearing on the very clear historical precedent that has been set by numerous clubs like Leeds, Charlton, Middlebrough, Fiorentina, Napoli etc. I would urge you to reconsider your outrageuous position that the team that plays in Rangers tops, trains at Rangers training ground, plays at Rangers stadium, and trades under the name Rangers, is not Rangers but a totally new club. Who happened to be called Rangers.Gefetane (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the club continues. But the page still has a section where it is argued that the status of the club has been "interpreted differently". The "new club" talk is misinformed, and is counter to both legal and football authority rulings, and historical precedent. So really, there shouldn't be any talk of interpretation - those who talk of a new club are misinformed or biased - the links to people of this opinion back this up - none are from the football authorities. I would like to edit this section (I have lots of sources). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrox1872 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Compromise article
Hi and thanks for the message. There are a couple of reasons why I believe we have to include the sentence that concerns you, or a sentence like it, in the opening to any compromise article. The main reason is that I believe it is the only way we can ensure the long term stability of a Rangers FC article, free from editors constantly trying to 'fight' the same club/new club argument. Having a clear statement that both positions have sources supporting them means that it is difficult for editors to feel that the article is unfair to the position or interpretation they hold. If we relegate the discussion to a lower section, the dangers will always be that some editors will read the introduction and immediately try to rewrite it without reading anything else. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * i think getting the content of what the article is priotiy then the layout wher eit goes can be sorted later, but ill look to move this around jsut now i want you all on the side of the comprise article to work and get it right and suports both sides-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * havea look at wha ti ahve done on sandbox is this more acceptable im willign to wokr on it with all you and get it right that supports both sides so wikipedia isnt deciding it says wha thte osurces say-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 19:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * i am trying to get something that supoprts both sides, i said we can merge it into one later if the osurces confirm beyonda doubt that a 3rd division win is added to other wins like spl etc then we can easily merge it back, jus tnow the new club camp wont accept it, we have to make it acceptable to both which is near impossible because nither side will comprise, fisherheper is right it is taking the same club campo side it has to reflect both sides of the argument or it will never go live Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * yues we can cross that bridge when it comes but if we are to have the new club camp accept it then we have to show wea re ot sayign it is or isnt it wouldnt harm teh article as t can be removed later, ok maybe just put 1872-2012 then it not saying there a contunie and not saying it isnt, becaus eit is sitll this year and no meantion of 2021-present-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC
I undid your deletions for now. Can you please get a consensus in talk for these before enacting them? --John (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have undone your reverting of my improvements. These improvements are explained within discussion on the talk page that refers specifically to the verbosity of that section. Please justify before reverting in keeping with policy WP:EXPREV. Reverting on the basis of no consensus should be avoided WP:DNRC. If you disagree about the validity of the improvement please explain these within the talk page.Gefetane (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Trust me, it is better to get consensus for controversial changes before making them. --John (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On what basis are the edits controversial? This cannot simply be presupposed, but must be justified. In actual fact the edits were in accordance with removing irrelevant material and improving verbose and unnecessary content.Gefetane (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already pointed WP:BRD out to you. Why don't you, as a new editor, assume that other people know what they are talking about and that, just maybe, you don't know everything. Adam4267 (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Rangers F.C. Supporters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unionist (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) 03:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

book pages
can you tell me the book page numbers without them that info has to be removed because i looks through most of the book and the section on attendance but foudn nothing, give me the pag enumebr and i can fix it-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Celtic
You know where the article talk page is and i suggest you use it. Blethering  Scot  21:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just want to let you know that this was never anything personal and the only reason i even got involved was the first day when my watchlist kept pinging with you both reverting each other. The only reason i though you were being hostile is i don't in anyway like people coming to my talk page with what i perceived as a tone, it gets my back up every time, I am seeking an explanation of your behaviour on the Celtic Supporters article in my view wasnt exactly friendly. if you had said could you explain your view or why you think this is right thing to do then you would of very likely received a better response from me. If im honest im not happy with either of you in that Adam should explain himself better yes but really the edit warring on the article was getting unbelievable and only got worse latterly. Im annoyed at myself in that i actually have virtually no interest in the article other than its been on my watchlist since day one, if it had been you i would of probably left the latter section as im sure you are now aware i don't disagree with it but there is no excuse for the ip's behaviour as there is never a reason to break 3RR and i felt there was no action but to revert him in full otherwise your fuelling the fire. Anyway i do apologise for my part and i hope that we can come to some sort of reasoned conclusion, i have become rather more strict with my following of BLP but its there for a reason when it comes to things like this but I'm not averse to any sort of criticism in general. I mentioned that i would drop my oppose if his name was removed i.e. mentioning the role and what happened but not specifically his name, its a compromise but its at deadlock at the moment and im no longer sure of your position anyway. I hope that you can accept the apology as i do mean it, out of interest do you actually support either of the old firm or do you just have a general interest. Im a Hearts fan which is obvious with most of my editing that and the pic of tynecastle that appears randomly on my user page. Blethering  Scot  18:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. To be honest its been a long time since if seen anything like this the Rangers page in particular at the moment is the worst i have to say. Generally its no where near as bad as this and it will calm down again once a few issues raised get sorted. The Rangers administration opened a battleground on almost all old firm related pages. Blethering  Scot  17:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:V at Rangers FC
I am sorry but WP:V is not going to go away just because you do not like it. Edit-warring to restore material only linked to primary sources will not achieve the solution you desire. The best course of action for you would be to find better sources, and to make arguments in talk based on policy. --John (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Rangers and celtic
you are using reason to add stuff to the celtic page because similar things are on th rangers one, wikipedia is not about predecents, if there examples of celtic stuff yes it needs added but in contructive way, im not attacking your character more the motives which i believe are wrong for a lot of editors invovled in these two articles, i am now watching baout 100 more pages relating to scottish football than i want to because i am trying to keep them all neutral, your wording of stuff isnt the issue ill already said what your trying to add to the celtic page is fine and sourced that not the issue its the issue of trying to add to that because the rangers one has the same tha ti have the issue with, please bear in mind i have severe dsylexic i have troubles even in real life with speech to communicate wha ti mean generally my wife has to write any complinent ltters for me so ther concise. if i have offended you i do apogolise its not my intention to offend your character Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe you've gotvthe wrong editor - it was adam4267 not andy Crawford who made those comments I believe 220.255.2.33 (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * im not entirely sure if i did make those comment but i dnt deny i believe eitors on both sides have agendas, i have seen coments that suggest you are complaining about the celtic articles personally i dnt care about them nor do i care anything about anything but the rangers article but now i am watching loads. i should assume good faith but this whole debate with rangers dead or not has made me realise assume good faith is stupid in this case becuas ei know this debate is rooted at the base of scottish football hate towards the old firm. the thing you where trying to add was fine and soruce but not appiorate for the celtic supporters article it was mroe suited to teh secterainism in glasgow article-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * just looking i only commented that th person who was editting warring was heaidng fora ban and i wasnt goign to get invovled with reverting so i aint 100% sure it was me that said the bad thing but i still uphold my apogolise as i have not assumed good faith-- Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to report me to any relevant notice boards if you see fit. I can't remember which one it is but go ahead if you feel like it. I PROMISE I won't stop you from doing it like I stopped you from replying to my post ;) Adam4267 (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Note
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Monkeymanman (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

reformed/relaunched
ive got no problem with the words but teh source spefically says reformed within a new company strutuce and relaunched into div3 we cant jsut blinly go against that ive started a discussion on the rangers page so best talking about it there but thought i let you know why i reverted it Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 17:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC response - Celtic F.C. supporters
Hi Getefanbe. We've had a response regarding the Request for Comment for Celtic F.C. supporters. General message is that the supporters club chairman bit is fine in its current wording, and the banner stuff is fine but needs a bit of rewording. Response is on the talk page. 220.255.1.165 (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back
Hi. Thanks for the welcome back. I have only had a chance to have a quick look at what has changed in my absence but the difference is quite significant. Perhaps you believe the article is improved but I believe that important material has been removed and can not think of a justification. For example, the controversy over the Famine Song being sung by Rangers fans is no longer mentioned despite it being described in a court judgement as racist? The fact that Rangers fans continue to be arrested for sectarian singing is not mentioned, leaving the impression that sectarian abuse by fans is no longer an issue? It may not be editors with a pro-Rangers bias who have produced the current version but if you start by looking at the change in the article in only a month, it sure looks like that! Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your friendly reply. I'm sure it would be possible to reintroduce the Famine Song issue because it is an example of blatent anti-Irish racism which is closely linked to anti-catholic sectarianism. I'll think about a way forward on that. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

hidden caterogy
hiya,

i understand what you are saying, and yes i am hopefully that it wont come back and if by the time rangers win another cup there not talking about first ever trophy bla bla, then i will remove he category and delete it, but if they do then we will most likely have this discussion come back, but saying that even if it was deemed a new club it can still all be housed within the same article just section breaks for it. If it does come back the next stop will be request or comment if that fails then it would be arbcom who take the decision out of everyone hands just like the troubles dispute that now on the rangers fc talk page but the tracking category would then allow them to see how far afield the problem is, are you aware that there is some articles like newco and Kernkraft 400 are affected by this ive haven't tagged them yet but i will. dnt worry i aint got any intentions to bring the dispute back i am happy a consensus is there but i know that there is a chance it might come back and i dnt want to keep a list on my userspace page for all articles that could be affect Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 07:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Be careful
You may disagree with it, but this was not vandalism. --John (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice John. You are right that unjustified misspelt nonsense can be 'good faith' unjustified misspelled nonsense :-) Gefetane (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. --John (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

AfD comments
The smiley wasn't the issue - and FYI, you've caused more offence by now qualifying it with "very." GiantSnowman 16:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Happy to chat...
Hi there. I'm perfectly happy to chat. I originally got involved with Wikipedia when I began to see its potential as a resource for pupils but then felt that certain articles needed to have greater accuracy before I could recommend them - so started making some edits. Quickly I become quite involved and now check Wikipedia every evening - a great stress-buster after a hard day! I would say that I tend to stick with some articles or types of articles for a while and then move on. As for the Rangers article, I got involved because I felt important issues were at stake about the credibility of Wikipedia itself - I believe that we must base articles on truly reliable sources. The end game for me will be when editors stop trying to rewrite history - I think we are almost there. You will notice, for example that no editor has tried to use the following quote from the BBC from an article today: "After HMRC rejected proposals for a creditors agreement that would have allowed the old club to continue, Duff and Phelps negotiated a sale of assets to a consortium led by Charles Green for £5.5m. He has since formed a new club which is playing in the Scottish Football League Third Division"

I do not believe Rangers is a new club - it is clearly a continuation of what existed before - but it is a relaunched/reformed club, as confirmed by sources. I appreciate some editors find that suggestion offensive, but the essence of Wikipedia is that articles must reflect what sources say. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I replied tyo your message before I checked my watchlist. It appears the BBC article has started a discussion after all... Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Gefetane1.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Gefetane1.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to send a message
Hi there. Sorry you feel my editing is disruptive. You may feel that I do not accept the concensus on the Rangers FC article - actually you will notice that the very basis of my recent edits is an acceptance of that very concensus. I accept that this article is solely about the club and therefore I am simply following this consensus to its logical conclusions. I'm afraid I don't quite understand why you should view this as disruptive. Or perhaps you think it was disruptive to attempt to move a paragraph to a more logical place in the article? Again, you may disagree with my reasoning but I find it difficult to understand why you should view that as disruptive. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to raise your points. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Phoenix club
Hi, the note on rangers is present because we have had issue with people adding them then in the past. The note is useful in preventing this. Please do not remove again. Fenix down (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Rangers liquidation
You erroneously claim in your edit that "No company has been dissolved". Companies House - the relevant UK Government agency says that the Company status of Rangers FC plc is "Liquidation". In other words, the Rangers company is being dissolved. As the notes explain, a new company bought over the Rangers business and assets and re-started the club in the Scottish Third Division Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * To avoid any confusion, I have specified which Rangers entity was dissolved in 2012 (diff). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Please WP:AGF. The fact that other entries on a page may be incomplete and/or incorrect does not excuse making the Rangers entry incorrect. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Company SC004276 has not been dissolved. This is not in dispute - click on the link if you are somehow genuinely mistaken: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC004276.