User talk:Escape Orbit/Archive 11

Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15


Flagicons use

Hey, EO, I noticed you erased one of my edits [1] in the 2011 Monterrey casino attack. I already read the policies, but I didn't find anything inappropriate in my edit. Can you please explain it to me more explicitly? I was just trying to follow the format used in December 2011 Nigeria bombings. Thanks. ComputerJA (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Amir Khan (boxer) & flags

I, too, frequently find myself removing national flags from infoboxes but in the case of your recent removal at Amir Khan (boxer) I think that you are probably wrong and I have reverted. Khan represented Great Britain in the Olympic Games and also fought as a representative of England while an amateur. I think that WP:MOSFLAG makes a specific exemption for sports people who have officially represented their countries. Feel free to re-revert if you have a different interpretation. - Sitush (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Woah, I've just noticed that you have made the same edit to a lot of UK boxing articles. This could be troublesome. Aside from the Olympics, many represented one or another of the constituent UK countries in the Commonwealth Games, in ABA tournaments etc, - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Reply on Sitush's talk. Field in infobox is nationality, not "country represented". There's other info boxes for that. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 01:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Got your note & I do not dispute it. I did spot the "nationality" bit but was/still am unaware of the alternative infoboxes to which you refer. Can you perhaps point me to one (or to an article that uses one). I don't really get involved in sports stuff (well, except for some 18th century bareknuckle boxers). I only have Khan watchlisted because of some spot of vandalism/BLP violation trouble. I'm watching this tp, so a response here is fine, if you have the time. - Sitush (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
First article I could find that uses it; Ali Ismailov. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Yay! Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Mariah Carey's voice section

Please sort out Mariah Carey's voice section. A lot of false quotes applied to opera singers and cited with false sources.

One of the sources used is even on the internet: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-human-instrument&page=1. It makes no mention of Mariah or the opera singer the false quote is applied to. It seems as if some people have been taking quotes from fan-made videos (check Youtube videos titled "Mariah Carey, The Imperial Songbird" and "Mariah Carey: The Empress of the Whistle Register") and applied them falsely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.182.51.195 (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Boxing pages

Make sure you revert any edits done by TheShadowCrow. He's ruining the boxing records and messing up as many boxing pages as he can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.99.215.45 (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Tennis infoboxes

Tennis project has often used an icon for country represented in the infobox and it is not against any wiki "policy" to do so. Please respect that. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

OWSLA compilation on Skrillex's page

Hey, you removed the artists on the announcement of the release, yet previously in the article all OWSLA artists are mentioned. I don't think it's necessarily wrong to mention artists on this compilation since only one of the 19 tracks is originally by Skrillex. You edited the post and it reads as if the compilation had 19 tracks by Skrillex, which is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorepriest (talk • contribs) 13:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood what you originally wrote. However, the article is not about the compilation, and not about these other artists. So there's no need to list, or advertise, "many more". --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit War ?

Hello I was fixing a Michael Jackson article (List of unreleased Michael Jackson material) and adding the 12 Cascio tracks that seem to keep getting removed by fans who think that the songs are not performed by Michael Jackson when I posted reliable sources that claim otherwise and the songs are registered to Michael Jackson and published by Mijac Music that company that publishes all of Michael Jackson's music .

Here's the links to each song and their BMI registrations

All I Need : http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=12951985&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID Allright: http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=12951980&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID Black Widow: http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=12951981&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID Breaking News: http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=12270963&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID Burn 2 Nite: http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=12270968&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID Fall In Love: http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=12951983&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID Keep Your Head Up: http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=12270964&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID Monster: http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=12271577&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID Monster (Rap Version): http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=12270965&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID Ready 2 Win: http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=12951979&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID Soldier Boy: http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=12951984&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID Stay: http://repertoire.bmi.com/writer.asp?page=1&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&fromrow=1&torow=25&affiliation=BMI&cae=618309449&keyID=550167238&keyname=CASCIO%20EDDIE&querytype=WriterID Water: http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&keyID=12951987&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID


Here's some videos where the co-writer talks about it 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15TxYH0hAjQ 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E-pmUppNJQ 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzFR2aga5GE&feature=related


So seriously only these songs are getting removed I don't see anyone removing the other and they don't have no reliable proof to go with them.


Aslo that one person "Barts1a" always looks for trouble with me on every post I make.

--ADKIc3mAnX (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Facepalm - I am NOT stalking your edits. I was just trying to gently nudge you away from that topic before you get blocked for your edit warring! Since you don't seem to get the hint behind a gentle push I hope that your eventual block if you keep this up is a hard enough shove to stop it! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 01:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Reply on ADKIc3mAnX's talk page. Rules about edit warring apply even when you know you are right. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 01:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You've removed the three links I've added some hours ago. Just wondering why you marked this as 'link spamming' as long as there are other 3rd party sites linked (in the references) with a much less value than my posted links. They should be marked as 'link spamming' too if the idea is having just official Sony links in that article. Or did you just not see the benefit from my posted links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.136.69.30 (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The other third party cites are there to verify the content of the article. What you added was not. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Saint Patrick's Day

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard regarding Edit warring. The thread is Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Saint_Patrick'_Day.The discussion is about the topic Saint Patrick's Day. Thank you. —-- Evertype·✆ 15:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism to Bearsden article

Hi - I see you reverted vandalism to this article added by an IP user. I also undid the same vandalism text, as has another user (user:Pmcm). If you check out the IP user's talk page you'll see that they have been blocked by admins and seem to have a long history of vandalism. I'm not sure how to go about blocking a user, but as you have reversion rights, I guess you're the best person I can ask to take the job on. I'm busy the next few days, hope you can handle this! Wikiwayman (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you had anything to do with this, but the IP address has been traced to a school and unregistered users are now blocked from contributing. Case closed! Wikiwayman (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Julia Nunes

If you didn't get it last time, than I'm not wasting my time explaining it again. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I take that as acknowledging that you cannot demonstrate that "Acoustic" is a genre and that Bob Dylan played the same genre as Luiz Gonzaga and Julia Nunes. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Now you're assuming. You can't prove it's not a genre. You need "demonstrate" how it's not. But seeing as you are too consumed with someone proving that something or someone "is" something, you can't be bothered to be prove your point. Until such time, stop wasting my time. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 23:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
You do realise your argument is a logical fallacy? Meet Russell's teapot. I cannot prove it is not a genre of music, any more than I can prove it is not a type of music played by unicorns at pixie parties. That doesn't mean we must accept that it is unicorn music until it is proven otherwise. Likewise with your genre. (And you still have not explained how Bob Dylan's Acoustic music is the same genre as Luiz Gonzaga's Acoustic music, as logically they must be according to you.) --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Now you are being bossy, uncooperative, and uncivil. You want to tell people they are edit warring when you are doing it as well. I guess stuff applies to everybody else but not you.  :-/ Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
How is repeatedly asking you to discuss rather then revert being uncooperative? Where am I being uncivil? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Passive Smoking or Second Hand Smoke Dispute

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Passive smoking, Smoking ban in England". Thank you. --Cross porpoises (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Escape Orbit. You have new messages at Status's talk page.
Message added 14:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Statυs (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.0.87 (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Skrillex (Genres)

When the word dubstep is mentioned, people usually associate it with either the early South London UK Garage/Dub based sound, or the newer subgenre known as 'brostep' (Please read Wikipedia's article on the early dubstep characteristics - [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubstep#Characteristics ], and brostep characteristics- [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubstep#.22Brostep.22_and_American_developments ] if you are unfamiliar with the characterisitcs of the music.

I think it is in the best interest that we specify the certain style of dubstep Skrillex produces in order to enforce organization, specification and accuracy. A large amount of verifiable references, several which have been cited on Wikipedia, state Skrillex's productions are, or draw heavy influence from, the 'brostep' subgenre of dubstep.

The following are links (presumably verifiable as they have been linked to and cited on the Wikipedia dubstep page's brostep section) that examplify the diferentiation of Skrillex's productions from the earlier type of dubstep.

http://thequietus.com/articles/07606-skream-interview

http://digitalissue.miaminewtimes.com/publication/?i=93270&p=41

http://www.spin.com/articles/dubstep-101-us-primer

In conlcusion, I am basically on my virtual knees begging for 'dubstep' under Skrillex's genres to be changed to 'brostep, as you seem to be the only editor who disagrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceNTimeForADime (talk • contribs) 02:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Replied on the Skrillex talk page. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ask for help

Hello, I have made this edition, 09:13, 2 April 2012‎ Tweedo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (27,794 bytes) (-48)‎ on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Walliams, yet it got removed due to copyright:( I'm new on wiki, and this is my first try. I'm assuming you are the one who uploaded the current page's image and got it fixed, so how can you make it legitimate? Thank you. 

                                                                                        R.S.V.P  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweedo (talk • contribs) 03:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

I found it abusive that you noted that I'm spamming the links. I was giving away useful links related to content which are following the guidelines and adding more than links like translations. So please don't mark my contributions as spam, because they're not.

Thanks, Harrison Hill — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarrisonHill (talk • contribs) 21:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You are adding nothing but ELs to a series of related websites of dubious value, containing nothing that either is not already in the article, or could not be added to the article itself. Please read guidelines here. Wikipedia is not a list of website links. Can I ask, are you involved with administering these websites? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Paddy's Day

It's been nearly 3 weeks since, yet the debate goes on.[2] I would have expected this annual tussle to stop by now, and to have moved on to Easter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Julia Nunes

Would you mind holding off before starting to file ANI's or EW's or anything to let me make an appeal to Fishhead2100 to come back into the fold? See his talk page for what I'm doing, but it probably would be well if you refrain from commenting there on what I say, so as to cool things off. If he doesn't see the light, then you can do what you must. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. Reply on TransporterMan's talk page. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

RNA Flag

Where did you get the RNA flag, with the thin red stripe? What is the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traversetravis (talk • contribs) 22:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere. It is not my flag. I did not upload it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

iCarly Episodes

Nathan Kress, Miranda Cosgrove and Jennette McCurdy confirmed some new iCarly episodes on Twitter. Whenever I add them to the episode list, someone takes them off. Can I please add them? Here's some proof: http://icarly.wikia.com/wiki/Episode_Guide Go to the Season 5 section. --Elizabeth2345 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Modest Barnstar
Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.2 (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hiram Maxim

Dude, my source was the U.S. patent office, as well as the "Mousetrap" page itself. Do a patent search yourself for Hiram Maxim and mousetrap, and you will come up with an empty results set.

This sort of self-aggrandizing nonsense is common among industrialists -- they lay claim to inventing all sorts of common items that were actually invented by an employee, a coworker, or someone else entirely.

I would also point out that the book which supposedly "supports" Maxim's claim contains nothing more than a half-sentence assertion, and that most of the references to "Mousetrap" in the book refer to project names of such things as rocket launchers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJustice (talk • contribs) 23:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

An award for you

A Barnstar!
Golden Wiki Award
In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.2.10 (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Escape Orbit, I noticed you erased a link to a fansite on the Chris Rea Wiki page. I understand that Wikipedia shouldn't be a "web directory" as you call it, but since the official site never offers any news, and since this page (www.chrisrea.nl) is (one of) the largest chris rea community with as much news as available I think it should be considered a place on his wiki page. I don't know if adding non-official sites is simply not allowed here, but if it is, I believe this fan site really contributes something to the Chris Rea page. Please explain to me, thanks in advance, regards, bjongen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjongen (talk • contribs) 15:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Chris Rea

Hello Escape;

Thanks for your reply! I don't know how to reply directly to your message, nor do I understand how I can raise that message to a talk page (I am quite new to wikipedia, sorry!), so therefor I am contacting you again through this way; sorry for the inconvinience. I understand that you didn't want to comment on the value of the website and I also understand that fansites are generally speaking no good source. But since the official site offers no news, whatsoever, never (!) this site is always the first and most complete source for Chris Rea news. For example, I have direct contact with his tour manager so I can normally offer new tour dates far in advance of the official site. Also most of the fans know that already (see for example this topic) but I think also the general public should be directed to the site. I don't think it is cool for me to add the link myself (I have added it myself in the first place) since I am the webmaster of chrisrea.nl! So therefor I was looking for your advice. On the one hand I don't want to "promote" my own website (although more visitors only cost me more bandwith=money) but on the other hand I do think chrisrea.nl offers the most complete Chris Rea news and information source on the web. Please advise me, thanks in advance! Regards, Bart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjongen (talk • contribs) 20:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

List of best-selling boy bands

You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of best-selling boy bands

FYI I presented your same argument in an AFD for list of best-selling girl groups. You can say your piece there too if you want. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The rather young co-star

Greetings -- thanks for cleaning up Jocelyn Lane -- I spotted the legal threat on recent changes, and did my best at googling, but was unable to find anything that could make sense of this edit. Do you have any idea what he is on about? Is there another Jackie Lane that may be the star in some of the films on the list? Antandrus (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It beats me. There is a second Jackie Lane (actress), but I think the article makes it quite clear it is aware they are different people. Unless all the sources are wrong, and there is a third, who didn't star with Presley, but did marry into Spanish royalty. If so, this is a tangle that goes way beyond Wikipedia. But Dlesaner and Dannyyy (who might be one and the same) aren't really explaining themselves that well. Here he states that she was born in 1954 and did star in "Tickle Me". But it seems pretty obvious to me that an eleven year old actress would not be appearing in this film in this role. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. He'd need to explain himself better and provide sources. The basic facts on Jocelyn Lane seem accurate, as regards the sources we've got. Antandrus (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

quote and other information both appear in same article.

just reverse what you have done. Onceshook1 (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC) He had great interest in music and a terrific sense of melody too. His music is dominated by Pancham (R.D. Burman) and us and we accepted Shakti Samanta’s Anurodh only because Rajesh Khanna had some misunderstanding with Pancham then and did not want to work with him.....inverted commas ends..... till here quote is direct and rest informaion is derived from same article.Onceshook1 (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell

Hey, CWC reverted your edit can you please explain to him how consensus has not been established? I've been having major problems with that article. Thanks. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Will this work as a source? (Molosser, Mastiff, Name Confusion)

You recently removed part of an edit I made in Molosser saying the statement needed citation. The statement was that "Mastiff" refers exclusively to the English Mastiff but people often erroneously refer to other breeds using that term.

I was unable to find where I originally read that online (and frankly wasn't certain that source would have met Wiki's credibility standards) and haven't actually found any other source that flat-out says that but the American Kennel Club's AKC English Mastiff Breed Standard page refers to this breed only as a Mastiff, not English Mastiff. (This would be my source.)

The same is true for Mastiff Association and Mastiff.org which, as far as I can tell, are dedicated solely to the English Mastiff.

Google didn't return any "Mastiff" sites that weren't English Mastiff. For example, Neapolitan.org , for Neapolitan Mastiffs.

Wiki's English Mastiff page, the first sentence (which is uncited) repeats my statement.

English Mastiff is on AKC Recognized Breeds: Alphabetical Listing for H-R (M for Mastiff) not AKC Recognized Breeds: Alphabetical Listing for C-G (E for English).

Sorry about any errors or messiness; I had to do this fast.

Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thanks for your contributions. SwisterTwister talk 21:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell (again)

The section has been reverted twice without comment. It would be great if you could help out. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

Please don't remove my inputs to Tyra Banks' modelling section.I know it seems a lot but I did that so people can know more about her modelling career.Many think she didn't do much apart from Victoria's Secret and I want to show that she did do more than that.

Thanks. Jandkay (talk)

Welcome To The Jungle: pointless trivia

Actually, when you put it that way, it makes sense. Good edit. Akdrummer75 (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Candle in the gloom?

Even if his pub-singer-on-steroids rendition of "I'm Still Slouching" at the recent Diamond Jubilee Concert failed to reach earlier inter-stellar heights, I think it unlikely we'll ever see a sub-section in his article with exactly the same title as that brief discussion thread! But I could be wrong: Goodbye Yellow Brick Carehome? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

alton towers

because it's out of date and it should be from 2012Lewismiller21 (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers

First of all I started the discussion on the owner section and it's you and Chris who are now edit warring by reverting a change made by many users. Untill a few hours ago and for many weeks it said Green consortium or just Green. Are you a Rangers an by any chance. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't take this too seriously if I were you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Policy you should read. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC - time to face facts

Your recent contribution to the Rangers FC talk page suggests that you believe that Rangers may continue to play in the SPL next season. I'm afraid I have to tell you that, at best, 'a' team called Rangers may play in the SPL, but it will not be the same club as was called Rangers last season - that club has entered liquidation. Wikipedia articles need to reflect this reality. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What you think I 'believe' is not relevant, nor is what you believe. So I don't know why you are attempting to discuss either. What are 'facts' isn't relevant either. What is relevant is what can be verified. At this moment that would be very little, because no-one knows. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers official name is The Rangers Football Club P.L.C and they have now sold Ibrox and Murray Park

As the title says, time to update their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbhoy1888 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The time to update their page is when you have verifiable sources that have a complete handle on the situation. You don't, so it should be left well alone. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy Murray

Until there is a lock on the top of the page please don't tell me what i can and can't write, there is such thing as free will and since Andy Murray represents Great Britain and not Scotland when he plays tennis there is nothing more you need to tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyandavis (talk • contribs) 21:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Which just demonstrates you've made no effort to read how the consensus was established, or are interested in following it. Consensus is a key Wikipedia policy. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we deal with facts and not opinion regarding Rangers please.

Hi Escape, I'm messaging you because you seem to be one of the voices of reason on this subject and you also seem to be an experienced wiki user. There appears to be too many people on this subject simply trying to push their own agenda and opinion. There is even a cited example of European Case Law on these discussion pages which all but confirms the right Rangers have to transfer with their history intact to a new corporation. This is simply being ignored or brushed off as it doesn't fit with some peoples arguments. The situation, to a noob anyway, appears to have gotten way out of hand on these discussion pages and I'm assuming there must be a process in place to try and reel it in a bit but don't know where to start. I've posted previously under an ip address before I decided to register. If you pick out my posts on the AfD Rangers FC Ltd discussion, I am the HMRC employee, I had to clear with my boss before I could register here and he's fine with it. I also sourced and posted the case law example from a different (shared) ip and I am happy to offer my area of expertise to try and help clear this up, but something needs to be done and I was hoping you could help me with the first step. Regards and Thanks Scottishfilmguy17 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Facts are known, the case law applies as Rangers would not be able to operate a TUPE scheme if they didn't fit the criteria laid out in the case law. As they are operating a TUPE scheme they must have legal counsel and permission from companies house to do so. This then constitutes the existence of the economic entity that is the club. I find it very disturbing that this would be ignored as a source but a quote from a red top journalist with no legal background would be accepted. Scottishfilmguy17 (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are wrong (or right). I'm saying without a cite that specifically says this law specifically applies in this specific case, then you have original research and it cannot be used. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This law applies in all cases where TUPE is utilised, that is why it's case law. In order to use TUPE these circumstances have to be satisfied. It is well established and well cited that TUPE regulations are in effect at Rangers therefore the case law that has to be satisfied is in effect. This isn't research. This is 1+1=2. If you enter this as a citation, via the fact that TUPE is being used it answers the full question about the continuing existence of the club vs the demise of the company. It will also put an end to the nonsense that is currently going on with these pages. If a player moves on a Bosman transfer the papers report that he did so and wikipedia cites the case law that allows this. If a TUPE regulation is used by Rangers, the papers report this is happening and wikipedia can then cite the case law that applies. Scottishfilmguy17 (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is your evaluation of the situation. I'm not saying you are wrong, I have no idea because I am not a corporate lawyer and neither are most readers. They therefore need a clear verifiable instance from an authorative source that says this law is applicable in this case. What I do know about corporate law is that it is complex, full of exceptions and loopholes, and requires very highly trained and expensive people to interpret and argue about. Anonymous Wikipedia editors are not these people, which is why verifiability is such an important policy of Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC Dispute

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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) 16:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The spirit of Wikipedia

I suggest you re-read WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, especially the part telling us not to remove information unless it's the absolute last resort, after plenty of efforts have been demonstrated for other solutions. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The policy you are referring to urges editors to not remove good information simply because it is badly presented. It does not come anywhere near trumping policy of biographies of living persons. The "spirit of Wikipedia" doesn't encompass rumour and gossip-mongering. The responsibility for getting the sources lies with those who want the information to be in the article. If I want to add that Paradis once dated Bart Simpson, it is not anyone but my responsibility to cite it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Tamaskan Dog page edits

Hi there,

http://tamaskan-dog.org/ is the new website for the TDR.

We are moving ALL the databases (health database / pedigree database and breed standard pages) all to that ONE website, with the old domains pointing to the new domain, since it is too much work for Rahne to maintain 10 separate websites / databases, now she will be the webmaster for the one main website... the other pages / databases are currently being moved to the new website.

http://www.tamaskan-dog.com/Euro/countries.php IS a dead link as Euro Tamaskan doesn't even exist anymore; instead, the focus is on each of the National Clubs (not regional groups).

Have a nice day, ~Debby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvaen (talk • contribs) 12:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sevco Scotland players

They will just need changed again so just leave it. True their registrations havent yet been transferred but it seems 99% likely they will since those players said they will join Sevco.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sevco Scotland are the club, you'll soon see. Sevco 5088 are the company whos shareholders own Sevco Scotland, which will be the club. Obviously they won't be known as Sevco Scotland, they will be called Rangers FC or Rangers or Rangers Football Club as they own the right to those trade names. They'll also probably re-name themselves something Rangers like for example The Rangers FC Ltd but they are a club(or will be once they get the license.--Superbhoy1888 (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So why can't you wait until then? Why are you adding to these players an unsourced nonsensical fact that they play for "Sevco Scotland", a team that will never take the field? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi Escape Orbit, thank you for the support on the Rangers FC talk page.

It is my goal to have this page represented fairly and accuratly, but unfortunatly right now it is the victim to bias and malicous editing.

By supplying factual, reliable sources in reference to 2 other clubs ni the UK (Charlton & Leeds United) and 2 high profile cases in Italy (Napoli & Fiorentina) I believe I can establish a solid case based on these precedents, that this page and recognise Rangers Football Club regardless of it's ownership, in the same vein as the above mentioned, who are accuratly and impartially documented on Wikipedia. Ricky072. Ricky072 (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Tim Gustard

Sir/Madam I see your criticism of Filthemill and his alterations of the 'Tim Gustard' page. Much of the information is incomplete or erroneous including the auction records which are several rather than two. Should you wish to correct or improve the page please feel free to contact me on tim.gustard@btinternet.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.15.23 (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangers F.C. trying to get a consensus

not sure if you have seen but i updated with your question, fishiehelper suggest is it still a bit ambiguousness and might not a achieve a consensus can you check what been said and see if you might be able to further make the question better my english skills are crap so i cant, i really want to get a questions that neutral, not ambiguousness and open to potential dispute in the future i just want a consensus either for or against and to close this argument down and to then implemented the consensus regardless which way it is--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Username

I am the CMO of gigatrust and would like to use this as the username. If not how should I change this to hpiccariello? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigatrust (talk • contribs) 22:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

questions on the request for comment for rangers fc

hiya,

can you make these question more neutral and better objective to getting a consensus assuming we still have to go down this line one can be used just now since we are moving forward

  1. Rangers F.C. PLC regardless if you see it as club and company or just a company are getting liquidated.
  2. Rangers F.C. PLC is the company that runs the club or company is the club.
  3. Rangers F.C. article is about the club or the company Rangers F.C. PLC
  4. Newco Rangers article is about the club or the company Sevco Scotland LTD
  5. Sevco Scotland has bought the club transferring all assets including history to new company leaving old company to be liquidated
  6. Sevco Scotland is the new club to replace Rangers F.C. - current article Newco Rangers
  7. Rangers history is transferred to the new club if it is deemed a new club.
  8. Who is the owner of the current article Rangers F.C.
  9. Should the Rangers F.C. article be presented in past or present tense.
  10. If consensus is for one article should the founding date say 1872<br />Relaunched 2012 or just 1872
  11. On the Rangers F.C. articles should the founding date be 1872 or 1873
  12. If the above question is 1873 should it be labelled as Formed 1872<br />Founded 1873 or 1873

Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Murray Park

If it just 'hairsplitting', you seem very willing to split hairs! The real point is not the ownership but whether the link should be to the article about the new Rangers or the old Rangers. Perhaps if we could build a consensus way forward that would allow the articles to be merged, issues like this won't arise. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

i agree with fisherhelper the only way to stop this type of arguments is for the two article sot b merge but both sides of the arguemnt have to accept that it will say it a new club and the same club and refenreced to show the media is spluit on it, then if we have oen article saying it a new club and the same club all the toehr articles can jsut poitn tot he rangers article and the rangers article can then be in dispute fora long time until all users accept that it has to be both, i know its impossible for it to be a enw clbu and the same club but we cant choose what references we use we have to say what is said in reliable source and strange as it is that how they say it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The team that trains at Murray Park is the Rangers team. This is what people want to know and is the primary fact that the article should lead with. Adding confusing detail about which company owns it is of very little relevance to the lead sentence of the article and is verging on coatracking. The infobox details the owner, and there is already information about its sale in the lead section. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
im not disputing that im not realyl following it that much plenty of other editors who are doign that, but at the end of the day to have it so that there no disputign what goes on the otehr rangers articles the rangers fc and newco rangers needs a consensus on hwo to move forward the best way for that jsut now is for all parties to accept the rangers fc page with merged of newco rangers and it say new club and the same club--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
also tak eit from another view point, you say peopel come to knwo that it is rangers who train there, but if rangers are seen as a new club then it the newco rangers that trains there so that another reason that bigger dipsute needs sorted first--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It really does need sorted for instance on the 2012–13 Scottish Challenge Cup page when you click Rangers you get sent to Newco page but other pages link to Rangers F.C. page it's getting confusing. BadSynergy (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is the kind of mess that results from forking content before consensus is established and why I have attempted from the start to stop people jumping the gun on this. Pull them back into the one article and let it make it plain the affair of Rangers' relaunch/re-establishment/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
help us to that then escape on Talk:Rangers F.C./sandbox if you note i have now made the first paragraph say both im crap at english but i know what needs to roughyl be said that supports both sides of the argument so please help me make the sandbox one article and fisherhelper and possible others will then supopirt it being one article, some wont but we wouldnt need full support just a consesnsus to do it which doesnt mean everyone willa gree--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi,

I got a message that I'm adding spam links to Wikipedia. I have add link to my Acne website. Link was related to the topic. My website is non commercial is informative and authority website without any ads.. etc.. Please advice why you consider my link as a spam.

Regards, Kris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webdeep (talk • contribs) 11:48, 1 August 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) 12:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Portola?

Hey, do you go to Portola? If so, who are you?!?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent80000 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral notice of an RfC

A Request for Comment has been posted for an article on which you have been an editor. If you wish to comment, go to Talk:List of African-American firsts# Request for Comment: Pro wrestling. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Rangers F.C.". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and 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.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Rangers FC

I changed the name of the club as the offical name of the cluc since it was reformed is The Rangers Football Club!

I am a hardcore fan and wish the club to be on this site with the correct details, rwice now someone has changed this ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shallowcal (talk • contribs) 17:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

4cancergroup and rhys jones

Hello, thanks for your help with this - I am new to Wiki so please forgive my rather clumsy first attempts! Rhys is a patron of our charity 4cancergroup which is why we have set up a page for him. we have included links to the bbc and scout.org - are these sufficient? Very many thanks Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4cancergroup (talk • contribs) 22:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed things up a bit on the article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Escape Orbit, thanks for your help here - I am new to Wiki and it appears I am causing all sorts of problems! I think my references on the Rhys Jones (mountaineer) article are now sufficient? Also, I have been asked to change my username - but I have no idea how to to do! All advice gratefully received! Very many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4cancergroup (talk • contribs) 07:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I expected more from you

My understanding was that reverting vandalism was not counted towards the 3 reverts rule. I reverted an unexplained deletion of sourced material - that, to me is vandalism. Anyway, don't think that I will be silenced by being threatened - what is happening at the Rangers article is well detailed in wikipedia and you fully understand. A group of editors are trying to ensure that they control the article and will reject material that they don't like. That is totally unacceptable. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A content dispute is not vandalism. And your attempts at characterising the deletions as "unexplained" are disingenuous and patently false. The matter is being discussed at the same time on the talk page. How does that make it "unexplained"?
No-one is threatening you. I was warning you for your own good, as you appeared obliviously determined to continue edit warring, despite pleas for you to stop. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Greater Malayan

Can you take a look at Greater Malayan. I do not want to go in edit war, however the terms did not seem exist in existing literature. One user seem to keep removing the tag. I would want other opinion on the validity of the title/article. Yosri (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC) see: