User talk:VanguardScot

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Title deeds

Closed Discussion - Troll

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

John Brown owns the title deeds to Ibrox so stop continually vandalising the page or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is your only warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.239.1 (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the consensus at John Browns talk page. Until there is a source that John Brown owns Ibrox Stadium or is a Director of Rangers FC (the two pieces of unsourced content you have added), then they will not be allowed to stay on wikipedia. Thanks. VanguardScot 14:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who made you the boss? You are not the boss. You are not even an administrator on this site although you obviously covet the role. Methinks you are a previously banner user with a new alias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.239.1 (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making these unsourced edits. Your edits have not been sourced and have been nothing but unconstructive, hence your temporary edit ban. If it continues you will be banned again. Thanks. VanguardScot 04:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You really make me laugh. Typical Rangers fan. Enjoy playing in Division 2 next season with the other seaside teams. Your glory days are over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.227.86 (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The football team I support is not relevant (It isn't Rangers FC), all of my edits are factually sourced and I don't vandalise pages. I can say neither of these thing about your edits however. Also please sign your talk page comments with four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. Thanks. VanguardScot 15:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers Troll

My advice would be just to ignore him and just remove his posts as its best not to feed the trolls. Its trolling and he or she is just trying to wind people up which isnt really working, i was going to just remove the post on the talk page but saw you had replied.Blethering Scot 17:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so in future. Cheers, VanguardScot 18:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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, Giant Snowman 12:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 advisro capicty so just drop me message is you require hrlp 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)[reply]