User talk:S2mhunter

i will see if i can add it, but i will have ot make it a neutral question, so it can not be seen as biased to either side, but rangers fan who are deciding to supoprt this new club i was rangers supporter i believ the club is dead need to realise that it does not matter what happens with other articles what matter is sources, as with rival fans have to realise jsut because they bleieve the club is dead does not mean anything nor does it matter if there is comparable sitution what matter is sources. i have said before as supporter of the old club i beleive it dead and this is new one, but i am wikipedian and i go on sources for aritcles and the soruces are saying the club is alive so untila conesus is reached i will not stop fighting to have it one articleAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2nd reference

hiya sorry i cant add that one as it not really a reliable source i might add it but i cant use it under the section for soruces the club is alive--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

medatiion

although the articles are heaidng in the right direction now there always a chance it could go backwards depending on sources, by using mediaiton then the parties who disagree and agree witht he current way can work to a consensus both agree on, you dnt need to to know the policies to take part, the medatiiors will hekp with the polocies and they will guide you all to getting a reoslution that can be place in talk for future proposed meanign anyone disagreeing will have to gaina consesnus to change it. you could remove yourself but you have been involved very heavily in the dispute so it better if oyu take part then no one can say your just not taking part because your pov is what consensus seems ot supportAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

interesting find

ill add it to my list if this goes ot arbcom they need to know far the problems reaches, it one thing a cotnetn dispute affecting a aritcle but when the content dispute affects 100 if not thousand articles then its problem you cant be having that many on full protection--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Rangers F.C., to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 20:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Status of BoE notes in Scotland and Northern Ireland

I reverted your edit because it is too terse. It makes a bold statement not backed up by any reliable source. "Sterling" is not legal tender anywhere, it is the currency of the UK. Only coins and notes can be tendered and thus be legal tender (or not, as the case may be). The pound sterling became so-called to distinguish it from the pound Scots. So the status of BoE notes (and BoS/RBoS/etc notes) is quite a complicated topic and I don't believe it can be covered by tacking on a few words on the back of an existing sentence. It really deserves its own subsection. The article already has some material on legal tender in Scotland, maybe that would be a better home? But however you tackle it, citations are essential. Good luck! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Pound sterling#Legal tender and national issues, where I think your point is already covered? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is why I was puzzled by your revert, as it's already established fact on wiki. I also provided a source from the BoE website which confirms that Sterling has never been legal tender currency in Scotland or NI.

P.S. As stated already in wiki, BoE Sterling predates the Union of 1707, so pound sterling did not become so-called to distinguish it from the pound Scots. S2mhunter (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While recognising your good faith, I have had to revert you again because AFAICS you have misread the source you cited. Yes, it is absolutely correct that Bank of England notes are not legal tender in Scotland. But "coins of the realm" are definitely legal tender in Scotland and these are all denominations of sterling.

"Sterling" has been in existence since the reign of King Offa (c. 750) and has been the currency of England, since 1707 of Great Britain (and thus of Scotland), then since 1801 of the UK. The pound was simply the mass of silver needed to make 240 silver pennies and did not exist as a unique (gold) coin until the first Sovereign in 1817.

You may well be right that the reason for the qualifier "sterling" being attached to the English pound was not to distinguish it from the Scots and Irish pounds. The other theory is that the phrase "a pound (mass) of sterling silver" became shortened to "a pound of sterling" then "a pound sterling".

I hope that explains my revert satisfactorily? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC) expanded slightly --15:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Coins are not managed by BoE but by the Royal Mint, a separate entity,which are I indeed legal tender throughout the UK. I'm agreeing with text later on that states BoE pound notes have never been legal tender in Scotland or NI. The article states that Sterling notes were first printed before 1707, yet Sterling was used to fulfill Article 16 of the Treaty of Union but unfortunately it was forgotten to make it legal tender throughout GB and of course this continued on 1801 with the creation of the UK. I was just wanting to highlight this important fact in the introduction because it is unique to our sovereign state, as far as I know. Can you help me with the wording? Best regards S2mhunter (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is difficult! (which is why I wrote that it needs more than a few words tacked on to the end of another sentence.) The article has a section on legal tender where an improvement would go: once we've worked out what it should say, our next "challenge" will be to put a succinct summary of it in the lead. Not another Article 16! I will need to study that before rushing to judgement but the pound coin in your pocket is a sterling coin and it is legal tender. The BoE manages the money supply which includes coins, paper notes, bank loans, mortgages etc; the Mint is not independent. Give me a couple of days: I might have to ask for advice at the Acts of Union talk page. Thank you for your patience. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article 16 says

That from and after the Union the Coin shall be of the same standard and value, throughout the United Kingdom, as now in England, And a Mint shall be continued in Scotland under the same Rules as the Mint in England And the present Officers of the Mint continued subject to such Regulations and Alterations as Her Majesty Her Heirs or Successors, or the Parliament of Great Britain shall think fit.
— wikisource:Act of Union 1707#Article 16 (monetary union)

Certainly nothing about banknotes (though both the BoE and the BoS were already issuing them but I'm guessing that their legal status was just as promissory notes). The Acts of Union 1707 article adds that this clause of the Treaty was "subsequently effected through the Scottish recoinage of 1707–1710". That in turn says specifically that the Scottish silver (but not gold nor copper) coinage was replaced with new silver coins. To comply with the terms of Article 16, that means coined from sterling silver (so maybe you can insist on being paid in silver pennies?

). To me that means that sterling (the currency) is legal in Scotland but only in the form of coins. So you are right that sterling is not legal tender in Scotland but it is not legal tender in England either! – because it is not physically possible to tender a currency in the abstract, you have to tender units of that currency.

BTW, "sterling" and "the pound" are exeptional worldwide in that the first is exclusively the name of a currency and the second exclusively the name of its primary unit. The only other case that I know of is the Chinese Renmimbi and Yuan, which have the same relationship to each other as do sterling and pound.

Are we any further ahead? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, We agree that Royal Mint issued coins are legal tender throughout the UK but BoE issued notes have only ever been legal tender in the Kingdom of England, according to the Bank of England website, which is supported by this article. Therefore we can say coins but not notes. BTW, NI and the Kingdom of Scotland have no legal tender note currency, only coins. Interesting that there is only 1 other example, although the history of China, let alone its size, means it's more understandable compared to the relatively new sovereign state of GB and then UK. So perhaps adding in the introduction the difference between the Royal Mint and BoE might be enough, since this is elaborated later in the article? Best regards S2mhunter (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will have a look at how it might fit in and propose something. If you don't mind, can we leave it until the RFC about the opening sentence gets resolved. Hopefully not long now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Pardon but I'm not familiar with RFC but I trust you. S2mhunter (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. request for comment. Used when a dispute is getting bogged down and neutral bystanders are invited to offer a new perspective that might move things forward. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]