User talk:MagicEagle67
a second" see's me ending this discussion as clearly you do not understand how wiki works. Will leave it to an admin to decide what happens from here on. Regards BadSynergy (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah the back door deal as described by Raith Rovers chairman who was part of the process. :[1]
And why would it only be football authorities actions that would deem whether it's a club or not? It became part of a legal entity in 1899. That is not in dispute.
- and as such a judge someone wiuth more knowledge than you or me has deemed the club and company serperate go and learn about wikipeida wp:truth does not matter, go to ranger forum and blag off your fun there at there demise, they folded but untila reliable source can provie it once and for and all ie if and when rangers win something then this debate cna ereopen unless oyu have some new evidence?Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—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 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. Monty845 20:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Monty845 20:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)- I've changed the block length to 48 hours in response to your use of a WP:Sock to continue the edit war immediately after being blocked. Monty845 21:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The page where the edit is in dispute is being edited by fans of Rangers Football Club. Your website flaw is allowing incorrect content to be filtered on it. To be honest although I do donate money to this website every December I will not be continuing to do so.
- Whether or not your right about the underlying content issue, you must understand that Edit Warring is not an acceptable way to deal with the situation. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution provides instructions on the proper ways to deal with a dispute. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide neutral articles, its common to have a difference of opinion about what fair and neutral looks like, and if editors just fight over it by constantly changing the article to reflect their own point of view, the constant back and forth would prevent anything from getting done. Instead, when your block expires, follow the dispute resolution process so that we can sort through the issue and reach a consensus on what the article should say. Monty845 21:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
To be honest you can close my section. This website has a major flaw. The site had appeared to me for some years now to be reliable but since I delved into it and especially over this history of rangers page I feel the site has lower credibility that I had given it credit for. The users on that page admit on their own pages that they are fans of Rangers FC. This is akin to Elvis Presley impersonators creating a wikipedia page to declare that he is in fact alive. Now who on earth would believe that? I do know that wikipedia is having a lot of dispute from users about this Rangers fc subject. What you cannot do is allow obvious mistruths to be filtered or I am afraid the site loses users, credibility and most importantly money. I gift every year, but after this episode I cannot contribute to a flawed website.
History of Rangers F.C.
[edit]Please take your content dispute to the talk page Talk:History_of_Rangers_F.C.#club_or_company any alteration to the headers or the content please discuss it there and gain a consensus to change, otherwise you might be warned again abd potential blocked. please bear in mind wikipedia core policies when make your arguments to change it. Gain a consensus, No original research, Present your case with reliable sources, Neutral point of view no personal opinions, verify what is said is right but not necessary the truth, Wikipedia is not about the truth only what sources say and can be verified. Also bear these in mind since you re in content dispute Edit warring can result in a ban, 3 Recent reverts in 24 hours can result in a ban. Please do not have personal attacks at me i do not support either side arguments both sides are correct reliable sources say its a new club and reliable sources state it as the same club, the history article is yet to b updated to include both but you since you want to claim only new club you have to get a consensus firstAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
September 2013
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. BadSynergy (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand your statement. Do you mean about Incorporation under Scots Law about whether RFC 2012 are RFC 1872? I can certainly bring that. With that in mind, what sources of information have others brought to the page yet they have been allowed to create myths as fact?
- If want to change wikipedia to say that the Old Firm derby no longer exists (as you are trying to do), you will need to provide reliable sources (Read over WP:RS). Reliable sources in this case would be official bodies like the SFA and SPFL, or reputable news organisations like STV, BBC, Sky Sports etc. Citing an abject paragraph of Scots Law is classic original research (read over WP:OR). You may also want to read over the archives at Talk:Rangers F.C. as there is extensive discussion, sources and consensus gaining over there on the same kind of subject (see over WP:Consensus). Cheers. VanguardScot 19:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- You are not seriously telling me that 'Official Bodies' in Scotland including the SFA and SPFL can be trusted to tell the truth on this matter? They have already admitted that there is a 'Secret 5 way agreement' on allowing a New Club a membership within the SFA even though Sevco (Who applied for the membership before changing their name to The Rangers FC) did not meet the criteria. The SFA admitted (Via leaked 5 way agreement) that they made the rules up as they go along to ensure ANY Rangers were operating in the interests of commercial deals. "Citing an abject paragraph of Scots Law". It is not 'Abject' to describe a fact that forms part of a Law. In Scotland if as you say Rangers FC are separate from any legal entity, they would have to ensure it has it's own constitution, committee, treasurer and members list amongst other relevant documentation and infrastructure similar to that of Golf and Bowling Clubs. Rangers had none of that, why? Because it was Incorporated and therefor Rangers FC were bound by Incorporation Laws. If as you say Rangers can be owned and operated by a 'Holding Company' what exactly was it that Incorporated in 1899? Rangers FC were NOT an asset of Rangers FC Ltd hence they were not 'Owned and Operated' by 'Holding Company' nor where they listed in Company accounts as an asset nor was there any 'Rangers FC' on the Sale of Business & Assets agreement from Duff & Phelps to Sevco 5088 Ltd. Considering there was factually no relegation, why are the Rangers who finished 2nd in SPL in 2012 not still in the top division and ineligible to play in European football for 3 years? If it's reputable sources you are after how about UEFA Art 12 which states “A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions…”? http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf . Factually if Rangers FC are as you say not a legal entity, then they simply are not regarded as a Club.
- You've still failed to provide a source (reliable or otherwise) that says the old firm no longer exists. I suggest you take your gripes to a new section on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football if you wan't the opinion of a wider range of football editors and wikipedia administrators, rather than the more specific Scottish football editors like myself and BadSynergy, if you feel we are being impartial. Cheers, VanguardScot 23:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- You are not seriously telling me that 'Official Bodies' in Scotland including the SFA and SPFL can be trusted to tell the truth on this matter? They have already admitted that there is a 'Secret 5 way agreement' on allowing a New Club a membership within the SFA even though Sevco (Who applied for the membership before changing their name to The Rangers FC) did not meet the criteria. The SFA admitted (Via leaked 5 way agreement) that they made the rules up as they go along to ensure ANY Rangers were operating in the interests of commercial deals. "Citing an abject paragraph of Scots Law". It is not 'Abject' to describe a fact that forms part of a Law. In Scotland if as you say Rangers FC are separate from any legal entity, they would have to ensure it has it's own constitution, committee, treasurer and members list amongst other relevant documentation and infrastructure similar to that of Golf and Bowling Clubs. Rangers had none of that, why? Because it was Incorporated and therefor Rangers FC were bound by Incorporation Laws. If as you say Rangers can be owned and operated by a 'Holding Company' what exactly was it that Incorporated in 1899? Rangers FC were NOT an asset of Rangers FC Ltd hence they were not 'Owned and Operated' by 'Holding Company' nor where they listed in Company accounts as an asset nor was there any 'Rangers FC' on the Sale of Business & Assets agreement from Duff & Phelps to Sevco 5088 Ltd. Considering there was factually no relegation, why are the Rangers who finished 2nd in SPL in 2012 not still in the top division and ineligible to play in European football for 3 years? If it's reputable sources you are after how about UEFA Art 12 which states “A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions…”? http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf . Factually if Rangers FC are as you say not a legal entity, then they simply are not regarded as a Club.
- If want to change wikipedia to say that the Old Firm derby no longer exists (as you are trying to do), you will need to provide reliable sources (Read over WP:RS). Reliable sources in this case would be official bodies like the SFA and SPFL, or reputable news organisations like STV, BBC, Sky Sports etc. Citing an abject paragraph of Scots Law is classic original research (read over WP:OR). You may also want to read over the archives at Talk:Rangers F.C. as there is extensive discussion, sources and consensus gaining over there on the same kind of subject (see over WP:Consensus). Cheers. VanguardScot 19:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I ask you what formed and qualifies to be part of the 'Old Firm'? If it is Celtic FC formed in 1888 along with Rangers FC formed in 1872 then yes that term was used to describe that Glasgow rivalry. However, I have provided you with evidence from UEFA that clarifies in clear detail that in European football terms, Rangers FC 1872 NO LONGER EXIST. Hence the Club posing AS Rangers in the 2nd Division of Scottish Football cannot participate in European football competition on INELIGIBILITY GROUNDS (Not banned as some are lying). I say to you that the term 'Old Firm' no longer has meaning as one of the Clubs that formed half of it NO LONGER EXISTS so how on earth does the term hold any meaning?
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. BadSynergy (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I have provided documentation from UEFA that CONFIRMS Rangers FC 1872 are no longer a Club. The 'Old Firm' was Celtic FC 1888 and Rangers FC 1872. So if UEFA state Rangers FC 1872 are no longer a Club how on earth can the term 'Old Firm' be relevant?
In light of the bizarre section on Celtic protesting against sectarian laws appearing on the 'Old Firm' page that Rangers FC 1872's sectarian signing policy can be given a section on here? Do we need your permission for it?
- You have provided nothing yet still except WP:OR and it is becoming obvious you are not reading these guidelines. Please provide a proper source that backs up what you say. If you continue on your current course of action I will have no choice but to refer this to an admin. BadSynergy (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
You refer it to admin. It is clear this page has been constructed from a fans point of view i.e. a Rangers FC 1872 fan. The mere mention of a Compulsory Liquidation even concerning Rangers FC 1872 appears to be a taboo subject. We will see what the happens at the BBC after their QC advised them to back Jim Spence's comments that the club died. The QC's advise is based on SCOTS'S LAW. Club died so how on earth can it still remain part of a redundant terminology. And for the record, Wikipedia pages contain information on how certain subjects are viewed i.e. Fans outside Rangers FC 1872 do not recognise the 'Old Firm' as a term any longer.
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MagicEagle67 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: ). Thank you. Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
How do I report another user for doing the exact same thing as me which should have been picked up by User:Escape_Orbit ?
- you were informed that your edits were clear vandalism after you failed to provide a RS to back up your claim that the term 'old firm' is no longer used in common speech. There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism. VanguardScot 21:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Common speech is not fact. That is my whole point on this argument. For instance I personally do not recognise the term 'Old Firm'. Did Lord Nimmo Smith have any sources when he declared Rangers 'In Common Speech were capable of being owned and operated'? No because he was giving his opinion. Had he been using the Law then he could not possibly say that the Club outwith could be owned and operated. If you notice the part on 'Liquidation of Rangers' I wrote on this page, it also said 'in many people's eyes declared the Old Firm tag as redundant'. The liquidation of Rangers and it's impact on any 'Old Firm' terminology should be installed on that page for people to get the full picture. In the same fashion as the sectarian section doesn't mention Rangers unofficial sectarian signing policy. Why is that information missing?
This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You know what you are doing please refrain from what led to your previous ban BadSynergy (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
[edit]
GO FUCK YOURSELF. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. I have a proxy server with access to over 100 domains so I will continue editing wikipedia.