User talk:Monkeymanman/Archive 2

Are you accusing me of canvassing?
If you are accusing me of canvassing you should spit it out. If you do accuse me of canvassing I shall take this further, so you should get your diffs together to prove it. Jack forbes (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice how you avoided that question of mine. I am not accusing you(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC))

Rangers article.
Hey MonkeyMan, just dropped by to to applaud your efforts and say the changes you have made to the above article are a a vast improvement. Hopefully the article will continue to be improved. cheers SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Monkeymanman, just to let you know I've restored the previous consensus versions of the Rangers, Old Firm and Sectarianism in Glasgow articles. Please wait until consensus is reached before making major changes like these. Like other editors, I'm open to discussion about improving these articles, but cannot support the sweeping changes you made without strong arguments and without consensus being reached. Cheers. --hippo43 (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Monkeymanman, just to let you know I've restored the previous consensus versions of the Rangers, Old Firm and Sectarianism section as per consensus and discussion. User Hippo43 is being disruptive on the article and has a history of this behaviour and of trying to force his views on articles.

cheersSeekerAfterTruth (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Question for administrator
Hi I was wondering if you could help me with something. There is a section on the Rangers F.C. article regarding sectarianism which was discussed on the talk page about being incoherent and fractious. I made a proposal and as there were no serious objections to it I went ahead. The edit was to shorten the section by summarising random incidents and transferring detail to the relevant article, in this case Sectarianism in Glasgow. It remained in this form for three weeks with no objections or further discussion about how to improve either article. Now User:Hippo43 has taken things into his own hands and reverted the articles without discussion. I would like to think if a neutral had a look over the two articles from before and after that they would see that they had been vastly improved. I am wondering how to go about things now, user hippo has already been blocked for edit warring recently and I do not want to be mixed up with him in that respect. The article regarding the Old Firm was edited in a similar way transferring detail to the relevant article and has been reverted by user hippo as well. Thanks for any help(Monkeymanman (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Per Bold, Revert, Discuss.


 * You made a bold change, that's great.


 * Someone reverted it.


 * Now, you need to start a discussion on the articles talk page, and invite any and all interested parties to 'please see Talk:Rangers F.C.' on the talk page of major contributors to it, and on the talk page of related project groups, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football.


 * Keep your comment brief - I think we should do THIS for THESE policy/guideline-based reasons.


 * Hopefully, you'll get a consensus agreeing to the edits, and then you can go ahead and re-do it, pointing to that consensus.


 * If you can't get agreement, see WP:DISPUTE - lots of options to solve it, such as asking for a third opinion, starting a request for comment, etc.


 * I know you discussed it a little on the talk, but now, at this stage, please start a fresh, short discussion, seeking agreement from others. Don't canvass by asking people that you know will agree - just ask in a neutral fashion for other editors to join the discussion.


 * There is no deadline. Talking is good. And stay cool :-)


 * I hope this points you in the right direction; if you do need more help, please ask - either a further (note, you do not need  for this - it's a content issue, and they don't have any special power in such matters) - or ask me, on my talk page. Best,  Chzz  ►  17:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Rangers article - Famine Song info
Hey Monkey, can you explain what you meant in this edit summary - "this was removed as stated on discussion."?

I can't see that reducing this section was ever agreed in the discussion, but I may have missed it. Can you point it out if I have? If there was no consensus for it to be removed, can you put it back? I don't want this to become an edit war. Cheers. --hippo43 (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I moved the info about racism from fans out of the "efforts to elimimate sectarianism" section, because it didn't seem to make much sense being in there. --hippo43 (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It was removed on the back of the fact that it has its own article, it is undue weight and Recentism. That sentence was discussed a long time ago and was agreed upon.  Perhaps we could come to a settlement in the meantime to summarise the famine song section after all it does have its own article?(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC))


 * As far as I can tell, SeekerAfterTruth claimed that this is recentism and undue weight in May. That is only his opinion. Several other editors diagreed very clearly, and objected to its removal, and I can't see any agreement to remove it. Can you point out where this was agreed?
 * More generally, I don't entirely object to reducing the amount of coverage given to this song, but at the moment the paragraph is badly written and omits some key points. If there was no consensus, as appears to be the case, please restore it before we discuss how to solve the problems. --hippo43 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just to let you know that you've now made 3 reverts in 10 hours - please be aware of WP:3RR. You should be very careful.

Next, could you let me know why you've reverted 4 different changes at once? It's not clear to me what you meant in your edit summary. First, I restored the Famine Song info, as I explained I would, which was removed with no consensus, therefore requires consensus to be reached before it can be restored. Second, I made some minor copy edits which were an obvious improvement. Third, I moved a sentence about racial abuse out of the section on Rangers' efforts to eliminate sectarianism, where it clearly doesn't belong. Fourth, I placed the Old Firm rivalry section beifre other, lesser rivalries.

In your edit summary, you wrote "you have no Consensus to alter the article sections, sentence was discussed ages ago and its placing, the rests under discussion." While something is under discussion, it is normally reverted to the previous stable, consensus version, particularly in a case like this where there was no consensus for the change (see WP:BRD). If I have missed any agreement about the order of the sections, or where the sentence about racial abuse should go, could you point it out in the discussion? Do you truly believe the bit about racial abuse is in the appropriate place, or that unsourced stuff about rivalries with Queens Park and Partick Thistle should be placed before material on the Old Firm rivalry?

Rather than simply disagreeing with me for the sake of it, please consider whether these small changes actually make the article better. If you want to work together on a better version of the Famine Song section, please revert the article to the previous consensus version first. --hippo43 (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes you have made a similar number of edits in a similar time period, You should be very careful.


 * Restored your minor edits


 * The sentence you moved had an agreement at the time(Monkeymanman (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Again, please point out where this agreement was reached. And again, do you seriously think the sentence on racism belongs where it is?
 * And again, where is the agreement to place the section about minor rivalries before the Old Firm section? Again, do you seriously believe that is the appropriate order for the article? --hippo43 (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, new approach. I've removed the unsourced, inaccurate stuff about rivalry with Queens Park and Partick. That leaves some stuff about Aberdeen, which I placed after the Old Firm section, in its own section, and one paragraph about Celtic which I moved into the Old Firm section. I hope you don't object. --hippo43 (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That section with rivalries seems slightly better. It was discussed here and agreed.(Monkeymanman (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC))


 * This is getting ridiculous. I don't see any discussion, much less agreement, over which section that should go in. What I do see is that you and I both opposed including it in the first place. Be honest - where is the most appropriate place for that sentence about racism - in the section dealing with rivalry, sectarianism and alleged racist songs, or in the section dealing with how Rangers have responded to sectarianism? --hippo43 (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I was awaiting a reply from an editor on the other section here, please keep your discussion to the relevant places(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC))
 * If there were clear objections then why was the edit not reverted? We will not agree and i want outside opinions from people who have not edited the article before.(Monkeymanman (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Monkeyman, can you advise me on how to proceed in light of the following from John(Admin)Talk page
 * Hey John, it's back on at Rangers F.C. - User:SeekerAfterTruth has reappeared. You're an admin, can you not just make him disappear? --hippo43 (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2010 (UTCBold text''')


 *  I commented in talk and reverted the changes on the article. --John (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)'''


 * I find it quite disturbing that an Editor can approach an Admin in this fashion and feel it should be brought to someones attention, that because I disagree with an Editor, he can ask a friendly Admin for my removal. Your thoughts would be appreciated on how you think I should proceed.
 * SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A nice cup of...


Caffieinebooost (talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Question For Editor
With regards to the Rangers F.C section within the article, there is a disagreement. It is listed here Talk:Rangers F.C. The article was shortened down drastically in the recent past and large chunks of the History of the football club was moved to the relevant article (History of Rangers F.C.) A similar proposal was made to summarise the Old Firm and Sectarianism section and move detail to the Sectarianism in Glasgow article. For the fact that much of the foundation history of the article has been removed / summarised, this fractious incoherent section if over weight, where the greatest achievements of the football club have less article space than individual incidents within this section.

The proposal was completed and stood for about three weeks until User:Hippo43 reverted the edits on both the Rangers f.c article and Sectarianism in Glasgow.

I would be grateful if you could have a look at the section as it stands / stood and the proposal.

The discussion is under the ‘Sectarianism section’ but I have created a new section so it is easier to see other editors responses.

Thanks for any help(Monkeymanman (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC))


 * As Monkeymanman is aware, I was blocked at the time he made those changes. If I had not been blocked, his version would have stood for about three minutes. There were clear objections to the changes he argued for, and he ignored them. The section has evolved over some time, with considerable discussion, and was fairly stable until very recently. Monkeymanman, if you genuinely want to work together, please revert the section to the version before SeekerAfterTruth's removal of material about the Famine Song - the stable, consensus version of the section. Then we can all discuss how to improve things. --hippo43 (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems as if you guys have a dispute regarding the subject. This would be discussed on the article talkpage to establish concensus from all contributing members. "Helpers" don't neccesarily do content/dispute review as their are dedicated processes for that. If you feel that the article talkpage is not reaching consensus, you can take it to a relevant noticeboard. -- &#47; DeltaQuad &#124; Notify Me &#92; 20:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * monkeyman made the changes with the consensus of contributing editors to the article, hippo43 contention of a stable version is incorrect, the section was removed for valid (recentism+undue weight)and has been explained in the talk.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Again. -- &#47; DeltaQuad &#124; Notify Me &#92; 22:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)