User talk:Spiritofstgeorge

United Kingdom of Great Britain (1707)
Howdy Spiritofstgeorge. Thank you for your kind, polite, and civil demeanor that you have shown me on the Wikipedia Article page entitled Great Britain (1707), or whatever they decide to call it. I am fed-up with DeCausa, and Moonraker. Simply put, I can not reason with them. Anyways, thank you for being pleasant to talk to, and take care, Don ("from Across-the-Pond"). Best wishes, ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Howdy Spiritofstgeorge. Thank you for your kind reply.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!#Thanks_for_the_message
 * Take care, Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Years in England
Hi Spiritofstgeorge.

Thanks for the message - glad to see that others agree with what I started. As I get time I would intend to do more, and add more detail in to the Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish articles. Cheer Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Rangers FC dispute
I'm not sure if you aware that there is a discussion about the Rangers dispute at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football to discuss whether there should be a single Rangers FC article instead of the two that presently exist for Rangers 1872-2012 and the Newco Rangers. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are currently canvassing on the talk pages of numerous editors - please cease at once. GiantSnowman 12:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the description of canvassing - "done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate" - exactly what you have done. GiantSnowman 15:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have NOT been even handed - it doesn't matter who or what you target, it's your tone. You have said 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" - that is one of the most biased things I've ever seen on here. GiantSnowman 15:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm uncertain how Wikipedia actually works but judging by the absolute rubbish spouted on the site regarding Rangers FC and the childish continual use of "newco" then I will regard any Wiki entry as doubtful in future. I will certainly not trust any entry to be actually correct. I have no wish to debate anything about Rangers FC. The club was founded in 1872 and is still in existence to date. There is no debate. Voting on something like this is akin to voting on whether the Earth is flat. No matter what majority of people would vote that it is flat it wouldn't alter the fact that the World is round. My use of Wikipedia after this nonsense will be extremely limited and always require a double check from an alternative and more reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCDBigBear (talk • contribs) 17:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me guess JCDBigBear, you're a Rangers fan? Oh wait, you're called "Big Bear". If you're not sure how wikipedia is run, well, it's run without bias. Andevaesen (talk) 05:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Your recent editing history at Rangers F.C. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You have been asked more than once to stop edit warring on this and warned of the possible consequences. Escape Orbit  (Talk) 10:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Revised secterism proposal
as you are against removal and suggested changes to wha ti proposed can your eview my recent proposal as i have admened it and added few more sentenacnes, it remains neutral and consened but includes more things although i need ot add some refenreces to it, if you can be happy with the new version i am happy enough to put it live Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 08:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Donald findley interview
do you havea wbelink to that itnerview i would like to use it in the article Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 13:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * oh i aint concerned he take legal actionif he was he done it by now, it more as adding a more clear source if a video or tape is heard him admitting it it a bit harder to demise it-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 13:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Reported for Edit Warring
You seem to be following me around the Rangers pages and undoing all my edits, no matter how small. The sub-section title "adminsitration & liquidation" you seem intent on using the term 'relaunched club' even though this issue was raised on the talk pages, and that term did NOT reach consensus for it's use. I've reported you for edit warring. Ricky072 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * he isnt edit warring in fact i would suggest to spiritofgeorge to report you for POV pushing and ingore sources and not gaining consensus to change things-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * if you have reported him where have you done it ic ant find it, and you should hav notify him with the code it tells you to notify the user with-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * no i meant to ricky where is his report of you, because oyu are not edit warring yet you havent done anything wrong-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 16:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

not goign on what the articvle itself says
goin on the artuicle itself "however Artemio Franchi, the president of UEFA at that time, rejected the idea as the reigning European Cup Winners' Cup champions—Rangers—were serving a one year ban at the time imposed by UEFA for the misbehaviour of their fans.", im goign to validate the reference to be sure th article might be wrong-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 14:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * the source does not meantion anytihng abouta ban i just checked-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ill double check but the thing ir evret said ranger where banned the souce and article says different but if your correct it wasnt recngise it gettign removed-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * it was approved and bless by the then uefa president-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * problem is uefa says there werent banned so that gives a problem we will need to dig into this further and put more references mayb reference groupo note-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

found it, it was unoffical, uefa choose to use other words i will update it-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

ownership of rangers fc
this article isnt just about the new ciompany but the old one to ive not had time to improve it please revert i dn5 want to edit war buti can improve it slighjtly just now Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * this article will go more into depth about the incorptaion in 1899, david morray tenure, craig whyte tenure and eventally sale to the rangers football club ltd.


 * yes ricky determination to consensus has bene bothering me but i really aint up for another edit war i rather leave it to talk page to sort it, ive jsut went along with it, im more concerned about getting the article to FA if there content war it wont pass.

im trying to do all the otehr tihngs required to bring it uop, then once we can get it pass we can work on getting #certain stuff readded Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rangers F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Green (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) 11:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply
No problem, I probably wasn't very clear. I'm trying to get the article to FA status but I'v not got a lot of time for editing it at the moment, so I'v just been adding minor things and reverting anything thet may be controversial unless its already got consensus on the talk page. Hopefully I'll get some time in the new year to sort out all the minor problems and nominate it for GA status at least! Cheers, Vanguard  Scot  19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Roll of Honour (song)


A tag has been placed on Roll of Honour (song), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. ww2censor (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2013 (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 Roll of Honour (song), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kevin Lynch, Joe McDonnell and Michael Devine (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) 09:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation
Do you have a citation to a reliable source to back up the statement that you keep adding? If you only have Russian propaganda sources to back up the statement, then it could still be OK, though you would need to discuss the exact wording.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have citations to reliable sources for your other controversial edit?-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that «annexation» seems to be a non-neutral word — at least with some negative connotations. Since the UN is involved, and General Assembly doesn't recognize the acquisition as legal, I think, it's generally correct to say that reliable sources consider these acquisition illegal, because where do we get the international law from, if not from the UN? It's the UN who decides, what is legal according to the international law, and what's not. But if in Wikipedia, according to NPOV, we should present even more neutral view, so to mention all the existing opinions, then as long as "annexation" is a non-neutral term, I would agree to replace it with "acquisition", since Russian government prefers not to call this "annexation", and this view, as it's a side of conflict, should also be represented. Otherwise, if "annexation" is really neutral term, which means "acquisition", then there is no point to discuss. But in this case we should remove the paragraph, where it's said that Russian government denies that it's was an annexation, because then the Russian government just denies the meaning of the word. And also in the article about annexation we should remove the word «forcible». SkipTheRules (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Republic of Crimea page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=691099536 your edit] caused a missing references list (help | help with group references) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F691099536%7CRepublic of Crimea%5D%5D Ask for help])

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) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You need to be clearer
You made this addition to the article on the annexation of the Crimea by the Russian Federation. Please could you either rewrite it or delete it.

If you choose to rewrite it, please could your new version include the following information: I realise that I could do all this for you. And if you would like me to, I will delete it for you. Happy new year.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Enough information that the reader can see why it is relevant to the annexation of the Crimea by the Russian Federation. At the moment it looks like a random paragraph in the wrong article.
 * Which country they were banned from.
 * Better information in the citations, such as the date of articles being cited, and the author(s) if known.

 Toddy1 has given you a Pork pie. Pork pies are full of meaty goodness, and are wonderfully delicious! On Wikipedia, they promote love and sincerity. Hopefully, this one has made your day happier.

Spread the goodness and sincerity of pork pies by adding {{subst:Pork Pie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Give one to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.