User talk:Ricky072

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 ( ~~~~ ) 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) 10:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

You forgot to use four tildes (4x~)here. If you hurry you might beat Sinebot to it. Britmax (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to

Hello, edit has been explained on 'talk' page. Ricky072 (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but in future please make explanations before your edit or in the edit summary. In pages with a disputed like this consider the

Wikipedia:BRD process. Make edits then if you are reverted try and discuss on the talk page to come up with a consensus. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Click his page "this user supports celtic" and he is clearly prejudicial. I did not tell him to stop editing, i 'reccomended' he stuck to editing articles concerning Celtic. Furthermore his tone towards my reasonable edits putting forward for debate has been 1 of hostility. Ricky072 (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

recommened to stick to celtic article is in fact saying stop editing rangers aritcle which is against assume good faith. he ha only recently changd his view to the club is dead himself me and few other editors who are from few differnet team supporters decided to leave it as one article but superbhoyu decided to go against consensus and create a new article and since then has caused no end of problems and since the articles for deleteion said to keep the new article we have to work wihtin that for now hence why i have been taking it thorugh the wikipedia rpocudre for dispute resolutions, i am only advice you to watch your tone because your getting to passionate about it, and ther enothing wrong with that but when that prejuidice your comments then it becomes a problem the same applies to adam and if i find him with bad remarks etc i will warn him to if either you keep doing it i have no choice but to report it to admin--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the issue here. Adam claims on his page 'Celtic supporter' and all his contributions relate to Celtic. His opinion is clearly prejudicial and fits an agenda. I did not say "stop editing Rangers pages". I 'reccomended' he stick to the Celtic pages. Ricky072 (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that I admire your efforts and believe that you present a convincing case. At the very least, Wikipedia should treat Rangers as they do Leeds Utd. I am disappointed this situation has arisen but hope reason and consistency shall prevail. Good luck S2mhunter (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well seeing as you and Fishiehelper are the only ones contributing to it; and you two are already discussing it elsewhere. I don't think its really necessary. Adam4267 (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is being discussed in general football page with a view of improving the Leeds page & also for improving the Leeds United page, as information on the Bates takover & administration is rather unclear. Its also being discussed on the Rangers page as it sets precedent for Rangers Wiki page to follow teh same structure as the Leeds page. Removing my contribution on the talk pages is akin to me being censored. Ricky072 (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ricky072. Just to let explain that a number of clubs in Scotland do not have SFA membership. Of course this is normally at very low levels of the game, but SFA membership is certainly not a requirement to be a club. Also, please note that only clubs can be members of the SFL, and newco Rangers has just been voted in so it has been accepted as a club by the SFL. Of course, it will not be allowed to play games in the SFL until it gets SFA membership, but it is a club none-the-less. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not entirely true, pelase see the SFL rules: http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/docs/SFL_Constitution_and_Rules.pdf Membership can be granted to 'an association' on the basis they then must gain an SFA membership. Ricky072 (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky, you're now way beyond

WP:3RR at Newco Rangers. This is just a friendly reminder in case you're not yet aware of that particular rule – I hope that we can get back to trying to build consensus on the talk pages. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

surely those warnign also apply to yoruself for undo'ing my corrections on the inaccurate article? Ricky072 (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky072, Sevco was the company that bought the assets, Sevco Scotland applied for membership of the SFl which it got so I don't understand your point about the Sevco link coming to this club article.

Anyway, please forget about the SFL for a second: an organisation does not have to be a member of the SFA to be a football club. Loads of football clubs around the country are not members of the SFA. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you pplease provide sources as to what requirements there are then to be recognised as a football club & how Sevco Scotland fufills this requirement. Ricky072 (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest you read Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule as I would not wish to see you get yourself blocked. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've supplied sources within my edits to provide proof that an SFL members doesn't have to be a club (it can meerely be an association), it also provides evidence within the rules that any successful SFL application is "CONDITIONAL" upon being granted SFA membership. Unless you can refute this with evidence please do not edit the 'newco' page, which is specifically redirected from "Sevco" on the Rangers FC page, which documents a company. Ricky072 (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been

BWilkins←✎) 23:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ricky072 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'd like to appeal this block. My edits were fair & backed up with strong evidence. The page has been in dispute for some time with certain users blatantly ignoring good, factual evidence to support a POV. Users then reverted back my edits, even though no concencus was agreed. No concencus was agreed in the cration of the new article in question, nor was concencus agreed in the vandalism of the original article. Now tell me who is the disrptive one. Why are my edits been seen as disruptive when factually proven with cited sources? Ricky072 (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were edit warring. You were warned about edit warring. You continued to edit war; hence, you were blocked. When this block expires, please use the talk page to try to gain consensus in a situation like this. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The rule is

BWilkins←✎) 23:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

My edits did not go against consensus. I contributed with useful information & citations with each edit. I however changed 1 sentence which was controversial. I changed the wording fomr "club" to "company". There is concencus & undeniable proof that teh article in question represents a 'company'. The debate is, "is it also an established club?". There is no concensus on that yet, so surely the logical thing to do is to coninute to state that the page is a 'company' (which is not being disputed) until we reach concencus if it is a club or not. Those revering my edits, the onus is upon them to achieve consensus before they can revert/edit the page to state it is a 'club'. Ricky072 (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read carefully: if it gets reverted, it's therefore against consensus. You then go to the talkpage to DISCUSS and obtain new consensus that may OR MAY NOT concur with your desired edits. (

BWilkins←✎) 23:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Read what i'm saying carefully. The page describes a company that purchased the assets of a football club. This is undeniable fact and achieves concensus. The first sentence of article can either state it is a 'company' (which has been my contribution), or it can state that it is a "football club". It is wether or not it is a "football club" which is being disputed, and unable to achieve concensus. Therefore, the wording shoudl state it is a "company" (which is agrred) until concencus can be reached as to wether it is a "football club" or not. Why revert the article to somethign which may be incorrect? The logical thing to do is leave the article in a state which we KNOW is correct until consesus is agreed. I hoep that clears it up, regards Ricky072 (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter how grossly inaccurate the page is, nor that a small number of editors are preventing the article being fixed. The 3 revert rule has to be accepted. The only way to get the articles sorted is through debate on the page and getting them to accept the sources clearly justify the articles being corrected. Not worth making changes at this stage if they just revert. Dont get yourself into more trouble over it. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond pathetic. I've contributed a significant amount of time & research to try to establish concencus (which obviously will never be reached due to the nature as to why the article was vandalised in the first place). Wikipedia has lost all credibility. I often use it as a source of information for work, but now having seen how this episode and vadalisation of this article has played out i now have no interest in Wikipedia. I've made my contribution to the articles, with signifcant factual evidence. I hope the article is restored to an accurate, neutral state in the future, but you may aswell just block me permanently, otherwise I will continue to edit the articles until they are a fair & accurate reflection and not the pov of vandals. Ricky072 (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happens behind the scenes of the articles is sadly often something that would put many off and certainly reduce the trust in it as a neutral source. But the only way to get improvements and articles to a more accurate state is to avoid going outside of the rules. Dont let the blatant stonewalling taking place by some provoke you into edit warring or going too far, its not worth it and will simply make it harder in the long run to get the article fixed.It will be sorted eventually, but when there is such opposition to something its impossible for it to be done quickly. Stick with arguing the cause on the talkpage please Ricky, because you have done a huge amount of great research to show why the change is needed. that is the way to make progress even though this is a slow path.. its not worth getting blocked over when edits will be reverted anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been making great progress on the talk page Ricky, but must always be careful when making the alterations to the articles. Have to wait for the consensus to accept a change on the talkpage rather than try to implement. Both the articles are entirely false till the situation is resolved anyway so minor changes will not make a big deal. Dont let yourself get into an edit war like that, its not worth it and will be reverted anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: On the 14th of June, 'The Rangers Football Club Plc', a company formed in 1899 entered liquidation proceedings. Liquidation is the process of selling of the assets of an insolvent business to recoup as much funds as possible to raise funds for the companies creditors. Charles Green led a consortium which purchased the 'history, business & assets' (as sources show) from 'The Rangers Football Club Plc' as a means to continue 'Rangers F.C' within a new company (NewCo).

So what is the debate? Well, this process has thrown up some questions. Is it the same club, or an entirely new club? Does this club retain it's history? Does a club operate within a company, or are they as 1? And should the club have a seperate Wikipedia page to be represented as a new club, or do we recognise it within the 1 Wikipedia page as teh same club but simply under new ownership?

1. What Do the Sources Say? Many journalistic sources have taken the viewpoint from both sides, the 'Talk' pages on the articles are littered with thm from each side of the arguement. The tabloid newspapers have often described the 'new company' as a "new club". Some ex-Rangers players even described it as so. However, many others have reffered to them as the same club, including Neil doncaster (SPL chairman), and even HMRC (whos decision to reject a CVA caused the liquidation). The 'new company' has often been refered to 'Rangers F.C' (the club name) within official documents from the SFA & SFL. Although it could be argued that the sources in favour of the "new club" arguement have only ever been journalistic view points and therefore documents from official governing bodies should take precedent, it is still a gray-area in regards to how the situation is being represented within the media. Therefore we need to evaluate further evidence.

2. Is 'A Club' a seperate thing from the company, or are they 1 and the same? 1 arguement being put forward by the "new club" camp, is that a club IS a company. That they are 1 and the same. It's a reasonable arguement as many official documents and sources purposefully define them as so, by stating the company name, and placing in brackets (the club). But perhaps this is simply to clarify to the readers that when they speak of 'the club' they are talking about the company. So what is 'a club' exactly? Well the FA in England produced this document on club structures: http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/The%20FA%20Club%20Structures.pdf says "The FA does not have any rules or requirements that specify that a club must be structured in one legal form or another." The term 'Club' is actually a pretty lose term, infact 2 people getting together to form any kind of association coudl call themselves a 'club'. Most professional football teams however are formed as companies. On page17 of the same document cited above, it details the process of turning a club into a corporate entity. After creating & registering a company, you then proceed to transfer the assets which make up the club, into the new company. If we move on to page20, it then outlines the rules regarding the transfer of membership from 1 legal entity to another. In other words, there is nothing to stop owners of a football club transferring all the assets out of 1 corporate entity to another, (if approved by the regulatory bodies). So, from that we can guage that a 'football club' is made up of certain assets (normally player contracts, a stadium, intellectual property), and these assets can be moved into a company during it's initial creation, and it can also be moved out of 1 company, and into another. So even if you take the viewpoint that club/company are 1 of the same, there is no evidence to suggest they cannot ever be broken apart, (otherwise a simple corproate restructure would be impossible without creating an entirely new club).

3. Precedents. Ofcourse, this is nothing new, it would be naive to believe Rangers F.C were the first club to suffer such fate. So what precedents can we draw upon? All of the following clubs have either been "liquidated" or "dissolved" and now function under new companies (NewCo's);

There are also examples of Clubs within Wikipedia which document clubs on different pages, such as;

4. History & Goodwill Another arguement made by the 'new club' camp is that the history ends with the old company, and the 'new club' is starting a fresh. Well as we can see from the above precedents, this certainly isn;t the case of Leeds United AFC or Charlton Athletic, who lay claim to their respective histories even though they present companies operating them were formed in 2007 & 1984 respectively. A more robust piece of evidence however is this Interim Creditors Report produced by Rangers Administrators Duff&Phelps, which details the transaction of assets from the OldCo to NewCo.

"4.2 The continuation of trading operations enabled the Joint Administrators to put the CVA Proposal to the creditors of the Company and after the CVA Proposal was rejected by creditors, the Joint Administrators were able to secure a going concern sale of the business, history and assets of the Company to Sevco (see Section 5 for further details)."

"4.4 Following the sale of business and assets of the Company, the responsibility for maintaining all trading operations passed to Sevco which continues to operate the Club."

So within this document the administratos clearly state the new company has purchased "the history" aswell as the assets. It also goes on to state that "the club" is no under ownership & operation of "Sevco" (the new company).

If we move onto appendix 2, the document then details the transaction with exactly what was sold and to what value. It is here we can see the transaction of "goodwill".

what is 'Goodwill'? Goodwill is an intangible assets, which aims to encapture the value of a brand, inclusive of history. If i were to purchase 'Fanta' the soft drink from it's owners 'The coca-Cola Company' this would allow me to continue to trade as if nothing changed (same name, label, intellectual property) lay claim to the soft dirnks history, and ultimatly keep the same customers & same market share. Without the goodwill, i'd still have the manufacturing rights & recipe, but i'd need to come up with a new name, and be percieved by as a new product, thus likely to lose many customers & the current market share of Fanta. Even though "Goodwill" may be a concept hard to grasp, it has been common practice in business for a long time and applies here, with clear record of it's transaction.

5. Conclusion with the above evidence provided, it's difficult to see how a case for 'new club' to be substantiated. The above evidence has dealt with the 3 main arguements heard from otherside of the debate, which thus far have been;

• Sources in the media describe it as a 'new club'. All of these sourcesare simply a journalistic point-of-view, and each one is contradicted by another source which states it's the same club. Where is the evidence beyond the wording of a news article?
• Club & company are as one and cannot be broken. We have disproven that with a document from the FA and with the fact, such an opinion would mean even a simple corporate restructure would be impossible without forming an entirely 'new club'.
• They are the same as Chester or Halifax. We have ruled these clubs as precedents as they did not acquire the business & assets as a going concern from the insolvent company (oldco), but instead are 'phoenix clubs'.
• You cannot buy history, there is no such thing as goodwill. you cannot simply state goodwill does not exist because you dont fully understand it. I have provided evidence in the form of a formal administrative document which states the history was sold & goodwill was purchased.

The wikipedia article Rngers FC was changed to reflect the club in the past tense, as if no longer in existence, and a new article set-up to describe a new club (in the same manner as the above named Chester or Halifax). such change was done WITHOUT concensus. In order to make such a drastic & hotly disputed change without concensus, the onus is surely on those who believe we are dealing with a 'new club' to prove as a matter-of-fact, and beyond all doubt, that this is a new club. So far there has been very thin evidence, if any at all to lead us to believe undoubtebly we are dealign with an entirely new club, and this arguement seems to be based almost entirely on point-of-view. Ricky072 (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is wholly inappropriate for you to copy/paste the ENTIRE 10,000+kb series of statements above to anywhere else. You enter it once and link to it. It does not even belong on the AFD, it belongs on the article talkpage. Now, you're merely

Due to the nature of the discussion, the debate is being spread over 4 pages (not my fault). Rangers FC talk page, Newco Rangers page, the debate on newco rangers article deletion & project football talk page. It's wikipedia's own failing that it cannot deal with this dispute concisely, nor in a logical manner be focusing the debate within 1 location ,instead the same debate has spread to 4 locations. Having been involved in the debate since the beggning this is a well researched contribution that aims to resolve the dispute by summarise 1 side of the debate within 1 new section. It's only right it should be considered & published where appropriate. Ricky072 (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It maybe worth taking the rangers matter to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard seen as the section on the Admin noticeboard has now been closed. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm astonished that the vandalism of the Rangers FC, that is currently giving the utterly absurd impression that Rangers - the club dominating the Scottish sports news agenda day in day out - no longer exists, is being allowed to continue. I understand the individual responsible has some kind of editor status, but surely that does not allow him to vandalise articles as he sees fit until another editor can re-correct the abuse? When will this nonsense end?Gefetane (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it's a poor reflection on wikipedia. It seems all it takes to lock an article in a vandalised state is 1 or 2 news articles to word a story in a certain manner and a gang of editors to insist on such edits against consensus. Ricky072 (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ricky please be aware of Wikipedia guidelines such as No original research, Assume good faith, Civility and Reliable sources. Although I think you have the ability to be a good editor I would suggest that you read up on some of these otherwise you may find yourself getting more blocks and with other editors not wanting you on Wikipedia. I would suggest you at least take a short look at each of these pages but I think you would benefit from making sure you understand each of them fully. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi adam, i'm not new to wikipedia, i had a previous account from my universtiy days and edited plenty of articles relating to my academic years. I created a new account when i seen the vandalism on the Rangers page, being a passionate fan of Wikipedia I chose to sign up again having lost my last log-in. I would prefer you not to be so patronising, admittedly Wikipedia has changed significantly I'm more than capable of following the rules and conducting myself within Wikipedias conduct standards. Ricky072 (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are "more than capable of following the rules" then you shouldn't be making comments like these. GiantSnowman 19:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a case of 'telling the teacher' every time a user makes a comment that could be intepreted as being uncivil? I won't be lowering myself to such a pathetic level but perhaps you should take a few moments to read seom of the comments and atttitude of others within talk pages i'm been participating in. Ricky072 (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A further warning - please do not refer to other users as "pathetic." If you have issues with other editors, please feel free to provide some diffs for me to look at - but that is no excuse for your poor behaviour and crummy attitude. GiantSnowman 20:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"further warning" I was warned a first time? Secodnly, i did not state anyone was pathetic, I stated i would not lower myself to a pathetic level of tattle-tailing to moderators on editors bordering on uncivil. At worst i've responded to uncivil editors with impatient responses. Ricky072 (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We both know you've done a lot worse than that. However, that's not the point. Please take this opportunity to alter any wrong behaviour so in future you can contribute in a more constructive manner. Adam4267 (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alot worse than that? Such as? Perhaps you should consider your own conduct after removing my contributions on the talk pages on 2 occasions. Many fellow editors in the talk pages have commended my 'contstructive' contributions which have been intsrumental in achieving consensus in a heated debate where many users have emotional biases. Ricky072 (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to provide examples? You only need to look above to see the explanation of an administrator who removed your comments from a talk page. Adam4267 (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which comments were removed? Ricky072 (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 
guide to formal mediation
, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 August 2012.

August 2012

Your recent editing history at

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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

I revreted a change back which had no consensus and opened up discussion for this particular point within the talk page. The other editor is "edit warring2 by insisting on making the change against consensus. If he changes it for a 4th time I will report this user. Ricky072 (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following you around - you don't go anywhere except Rangers articles. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Now, you reverted the same change five times and will be reported to administrators.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I decided that you should be given one more chance. Please go to the talk page of the article and discuss the changes. One more revert will bring you to the noticeboard.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

he hasnt reerted anything today ???Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Ricky072--Ymblanter (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes but he hasnt done any revert on the ranger fc p[age never mind 3 within the ;l.ast 24hours--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last revert out of five--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that was 3 revert in 24 hours any more would break 3rr, however you warned him for the Rangers F.C. article not the one oyu jsut linked so if oyu had reported that a admin might have though you where being obsuctive ot this editor--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He can only be reported with diffs. Anyway, now he definitely must know what I have warned him for.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I undid your edit at Celtic F.C. as it was not sourced properly. The Sun, as a tabloid, is not considered a reliable source for anything and the other one was even worse. Please feel free to bring any better sources for this information to the talk page and discuss them there. Please do not add any more poorly-sourced material to Wikipedia. Thank you. --John (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you as many examples as you like of tabloid material used as citations. The other was a photograph.... ? Ricky072 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better, I can show you umpteen discussions at

WP:RSN which conclude that tabloids like The Sun are not good sources. A photo is a lousy source; it is extremely easy to fake a photo. --John (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh dear, I saw this. Bad idea, and poor edit summary. And YouTube videos are not a good source either. You have 20 minutes from this timestamp to self-revert or this will become the subject of an AN/I report. --John (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I double checked before posting; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Video_links a prominent editor of the celtic page, Adam, also mentioned to me in the past that youtube videos are viewed as acceptable sources. What is it your challenging, the relability of information? I've sourced a tabloid article published on the video & the video itself. Many Wiki articles have citation from tabloid articles & youtube videos. It may not be iwed as the most relaible, but certainly there is no ban on Youtube or Tabloids as sources & citations. Ricky072 (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--John (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a note here, generally youtube is not a reliable source unless the actual youtube page is official and can be proven as such. The "sun" (although a tabloid) can be used as a source but if there are better more reliable ones around then focus on those instead. Keep a clean nose and dont get dragged into an edit war (be wary of the

i just want ot apogolise i basically undone all your work, it was because i was finishing converting to citation for FA status. there was to many changes for me to merge theminto the conversion, but i am goign to leave the section alone still got some minor wokr to do until your finished i will owkr on other bits of the article still needing work.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

once i finish the su0porters section i will try do all the merging and you can verify it later and do any changes requiredAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
.

Correct me if I am wrong, but when football clubs are liquidated, they cease to exist unless reformed within a new company. If Rangers had not reformed within a new company, there would be no Rangers playing this season. You seem determined to sanitise this article of anything you don't like even when it is part of the story, is sourced, and should be reported. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has already been this discussion on the talk page. Think of the 'club' as a product, like a fizzy drink, or a resteraunt. If the company that owns the fizzy drink or resteraunt goes bust, an entirely new company can purchase all the assets invovled in the business. If that drink is 'Fanta' or the Resteraunt is 'Luigi's' and the new owner decided to keep everything the same as before (name, logo, location, staff, sponsorships) etc, and there is never any closure of the business (it carries on with a smooth transistion of the purchase) then what exactly REFORMS? nothing does, because the product reamins the same, the drink, the resteraunt, or the football club remains consistent. It is 're-created' or 're-founded'. Consensus was more or less achieved on this issue (otherwise the article would still use the past-tense). Now the issue becomes with 'the company'. Was the company 're-formed'? Again, no, because it's something entirely new. It was created, or born, as Sevco 5088. In theory, the old company in a state of liquidation could still potential be purchased (although pointless and unlikely as it is merely a shell holding huge amount of debt). If it was purchased, say by Green, braught out of the state of liquidation - then you could argue that the old company had been 'reformed'. This is why there is no concensus for the term, but also, there is no need to use the term, the information covered within the subsection is perfectly described by the word 'liquidation' alone. Ricky072 (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sorry but you have left me no choiceAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current