User talk:VanguardScot

If you have anything to say to me, please post your comments here. I will remove any and all inappropriate and blatantly misspelled comments. Recent comments must be placed at the bottom of the page. Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) after your comment. By posting here, you agree unconditionally to the rules above.

Thank you for reading this, VanguardScot

Scotland task force invite

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, a Football In Scotland task force has been set up. As you edit articles on Scottish football, I would like to invite you to become a member. The task force is a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scottish football. If you would like to participate, please visit the task force page for details of how to join.

Blethering Scot 18:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ibrox

You're dealing with an article that has already been improved (mainly by myself) to good article status. The point being that an experienced third party has assessed it of being that standard already. If you want to improve it further with a view to it possibly reaching featured article status, I would suggest placing it under peer review first. That will allow you to see what other people need think needs to be added or changed, to incrementally improve the article. It doesn't need a wholescale rewrite like that. Indeed, if I had left that edit in place, it is likely that the good article status would have been queried and removed.

There were bits of the edit that were good and interesting (more detail about the pre-history, attendance history and Green's plans), but overall it was detrimental. Specifically, the claim of a world record fourth tier attendance is patent nonsense. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland

I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Rangers consensus

The problem with the consensus was it was a really long drawn out affair. It was a chaotic few months as some editors decided that the club had died and created a new team page (called Sevco/Sevco 5088/Sevco Scotland/Newco Rangers). After weeks of arguing (I'd like to say debating lol) the page was put on full protection until everything could be sorted. Anyway whenever an IP or editor pops up saying RFC is dead etc I wish there was a simpler way to defuse the issue hence why I asked Captain to read through the RFC talk archives to see how consensus was reached. If Captain returns with the same attitude I'm not sure what to do. I really don't want to have to C&P entire archives just for Captain to read hopefully won't come to that. BadSynergy (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The main reason I started editing the Rangers Related pages was to help AndrewCrawford in getting the page to Good Article or Featured Article status, as I am new to Wikipedia I was wanting to learn the ins and outs of doing that from an experienced user. Unfortunately Andrew has now left and the RFC page doesn't look to be going in that direction now, so my editing of Rangers related subjects might start to decrease from now on if I find another Wikipedia article/project to get my hands on (lol). But in relation to the problems with the Rangers dispute I think looking at the vast number of sources, the consensus is pretty clear. Andrew created a pretty good Q&A section on the Rangers FC talk page, but I'm not really sure what you can do other than send people to read that, and maybe update it with newer sources from time to time, to dissuade people from trying to make it out that Rangers are a new club. VanguardScot 13:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

After checking Captains past contributions he has history of changing that certain page so could just be a one-off. Yeah Andrew was a great help and it was people with Captains attitude that helped him stop editing as he was the subject of abuse from a few. I and others obv defended him but think it affected more than we thought. BadSynergy (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Airdrie / Airdrie United / Airdrieonians

Hi, I have reverted your move - please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Airdrie / Airdrie United / Airdrieonians, I have made some suggestions there but we will need to take to WP:RM. Regards, GiantSnowman 12:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in head first, I assumed because it was well sourced this time (last time this all came up it was just the badge name that was changed) it would be ok to change it and post my reasoning on the talk page. I have now contributed to the discussion at WP:Football. Cheers, VanguardScot 13:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Please reply to me at Talk:Airdrie United F.C.#Requested move 2, I would like to hear your reasoning behind your claims of "confusing" & "ambiguous" (Liam_Barnett (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC))

Replied. Cheers, VanguardScot 18:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Section B

Thanks for tidying up the "Activity" section of this article - it looks and reads much better now. I am not the best at adding references correctly/where they should be, but will keep my eyes open for any fresh links. Older ativity is a problem as there aren't so many articles and you are reliant on newspaper cuttings from the day - maybe I should search the online newspaper archives when I have more time! Centre Stand (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem! I'm not massively interested in those sort of articles, but when I seen it passing through it's formatting was pretty bad. I probably wont be spending much more time on it due to other commitments, feel free to keep updating the page yourself though. Best way to learn about referencing in my eyes is to find a Featured Article and have a look through the source code. Good luck , VanguardScot 10:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

semi retirement

after i decided i was leaving i notice yiu said you came to wikipedia to help get the rangers article to FA, although I will no longer be involved i am still going to be here in advisory capacity so just drop me message is you require help or advice on a dsitution but I will not be taking part in discussion and certainly not anything to do with consensus makingAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. I'm not on here as often as I was initially, but hopefully I can get a GA or FA under my belt eventually! VanguardScot 21:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Ip

Sorry needed to remind myself. If the point introduced does not match the source and its a clear factual error then the ip or user should be warned using the Introducing deliberate factual error template. I wouldn't use the vandalism template warning unless its clear vandalism. If the user continues after a final warning then user should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Im fairly certain ip's would only be rangeblocked in extreme cases and if it isn't likely to cause collateral damage by doing so, however if it was extreme and there was a clear ongoing complex pattern then it could be reported at one of the Admin boards. Do you use WP:Twinkle? Blethering Scot 21:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Scott Gallagher

Hello VanguardScot, I saw you reverted a change I made earlier to the Rangers 2013–14 season page. Just so you know, I asked an Admin to rename Scott Gallagher to the correct surname spelling Scott Gallacher, that should resolve the red link that's on the page now. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ibrox capacity

Thanks for catching that. I knew that the pdf and SPFL ad different capacities and wanted to make sure that all articles had the same figures. I was getting the references from the List of football stadiums in Scotland and for some reason copied the capacity of Hampden Park from there as well. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry !

Just to say sorry...I thought the issue was to do with the title of the subsection rather than sensitivity about including the phrase in the subsection itself. Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)