Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Newco Rangers are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. wikipedia does not take sides it doesn't matter what you think, using that sort of language is out of order, we are working on trying to make it one article but regardless how much you dislike it, sources say it is new club as well as the same club so there no chance this will go easily instead of just shouting abuse read wikipeida rules and work with them to create one article Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the point is that is your POV which does nto matter on wikipedia what matter is wha tthe reliable source say and there saying the lcub is liqudiated and the cub is the same that is why we haev problem but we also have POV pushers on both sides but this is going to be taken out of everyone hands as arbcom will most liekly rule on it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it does not matter what the rangers fan like, it does not matter what the rival fans like, it does not matter what eanyone likes, i suggest you go read wikipeida basic prinicples wp:rs, wp:verifiability, wp:npov and wp:nor fcebook is not reliable source, rangers website is primary source so has conflict of itnerest so cant be used, reliable source liek bbc etc say its a new club wikipedia has to go on them, but there is as equal amoutn say it is the same club so wikipeida has to say it, it doesnt matter if oyu like it or not, and i very much doubt there is 6 million rangers fans ;)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

no one runs the articles, it is communtiy article so based on community consensusAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no one is adminsitrator of it, it is free to edit by anyone, you can edit anyone cani suggest you learn about wikipedia policies before editing as you will be banned with thongs you are doing--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you would be banend for the offensive comment you made the toehr day, you would be banend for pushing a pov there is plenty i suggest you rea wikipedia rules, the page isnt locked now but if edit warring starts again it will be , any changes you make i ther enot neutral and follow what sources say they will be reverted--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

semi protection only stop ip ans new accounts who havent edited before just click the edit button--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aradioham! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Please suggest changes on the Rangers article talkpage rather than making inaccurate changes which will be reverted. For your information the old company that owned rangers between 1899 and 2012 was THE Rangers Football Club too. So there is no difference, the club itself is known as Rangers, not "the rangers". The article is about the football club itself, not the company which owns the club. The comapany article will soon be moved to The Rangers Football Club Ltd. Thankyou BritishWatcher (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is the same football club, and that is what the current consensus on the page has agreed too. But that other article wont be deleted it is going to be moved, if you look at the content of the article at Newco Rangers it now strictly focuses on the company that owns the club, rather than acting as though it is a separate club. There is a move request which looks like it will be successful which will move Newco Rangers to The Rangers Football Club Ltd and it will remain about the company.

So there will be 3 articles..

• Rangers F.C. - About the club founded in 1872 which is currently playing in Div 3.
• The Rangers Football Club Ltd - About the company formed in 2012 which now owns the club.
• Administration and liquidation of Rangers F.C. plc - About the old company that owned rangers and the developments over recent months.

These 3 articles will work well together, and it is a method that should be supported by those who rightly believe it is the same club. Adding "the" to rangers name on the club page, undermines the case that its the same club, simply a different company owning it. Hope you understand. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm GoShow. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Sean Connery, because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. GoShow (...............) 06:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

please do not read this without a source again i have hunted down for one but i cant find anything not even on teh rangers site this is original reseach if you readd it it will be reverted instaly unless it got a reliable sourceAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mate I'll give you a source, so please keep my thing up about the score. Look at the old firm page. At Rangers, it says we beat celtic 9-1 and it was approved.

until you provide the source dnt readd it, i have checked the old firm page and it doesnt havea source, it aint even on the rangers offical site for recrods and i dnt tink they wouldnt want to advertise there biggest win agians tthe old rivals dnt you you???? once you give the source and i cam verify it is reliable you can readd it until then no as it unsourcedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a source mate, where it says rangers highest score under the picture. http://www.rangerspedia.org/index.php/Celtic_FC AND THAT'S ON THE OFFICIAL RANGERS WIKIPIDIA!!!

It's on the official old firm wikipidia page aswell mate! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Firm

It's even here on a scottish football forum! http://www.scottishleague.net/archive/archive78.htm

And see, it says here we beat them 9-1 in a friendly at celtics ground! http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100320073059AAFH7Ag

IT'S EVERYWHERE MATE!!!

Andrew, how come you never put the 9-1 score up? I gave you 4 links there for the proof you asked for.

every one of them are unrelaible and you can put a reference to wikipedia itself, fans sites are always unreliable, yahoo answers is unrealible and scottish league is fan site so unrealible finda reliable one then it can be added learn how wikipedia works Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • My final point of proof*** Celtic lost 9-1 at home to Rangers on the 11th of August 1888 is in the Queen's Park matchday programme I bought at when we beat them 1-0 at Hampden last week, a quote in the programme saying we beat celtic 9-1 away. Page 27 if you have got it or have a friend who could show you the programme. Ready Mate?! Remember I'm going to the trouble of typing all this out for you !

"Celtic's first-ever match was an Old Firm friendly, on May 28, 1888, at the original Celtic Park (close to the current stadium). They got off to a good start with a 5-2 win (apologies to today's visitors). Celtic's next game was also a home friendly but this went 9-1 for the Gers (no apologies necessary). " KABOOM MATE!

if you can scan that and upload it i can use the information from that as a source, i dnt see that failing reliable sources, i need to see it so i can get the information to source it probally then it can be added, you have ot understand wikipedia policies it not to do with rangers fan wanting to rub it into celtic fans if it cant be verified then it cant be added this is one source that can porbally do that, im not doing it to be annoyign to you i am doing it because i am bringing the article to the high quailty to do that everything has to be verifiedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrew. I shall upload the picture onto my facebook page as it's the easiest way if that's ok with you?

that fine with me, i will take the informaiton i require from it, try make sure you scan every page including the front cover and back cover those are the ones that will mot likely have the important information i need, but the page witht eh quote will be important toAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right then, I'll put up a picture of the paragraph

There we got, exactly worded as I had said above :) http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=466555550057507&set=a.297702216942842.66324.297530846959979&type=1&relevant_count=1

that great thanks, can you do the back cover of the magazine so i can get some addiotnal information, i will add this in later within a few weeks possiable tonight or tomorrow but i am quite busy i need to make sure the reference is there. please dnt take me stopping you adding it as anything personal i am only following the wikipedia policiesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

one other thing do you own the acutally book if so you could uplaod the scan to wikipedia and i can also link to them #Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I own it, but how can u do a scan? Is it just the back page you want?

The back page is just 4 small pictures, that's it lol

i need information on the publ;isher of the magazine, the name of the magazine, isdn number if one, date published and any other information before i can add it Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: David Stirling and Logan Taylor. Printed by Garthland Design and Print and the person that found the 9-1 score was David McPuzzle.

ok do you know what year or the excat date of published? and where it was location is ie was it pritne din glasgow??? does it have ISDN number??? it just makes it mroe reliable, i also need the name of the magazine, also is it a magazine or something else???Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Park 0-1 Rangers matchday programme for the 29th december 2012 game. There's no code on it mate and the location it was published would probably be where ever the Garthland design anc print office is. And it doesn't say when it was published

ok that page you put up gave me some information but importantly it gave mea a offical website, i have contacted the site and they confirm thi scoreline however.... they admit they cant indepently prove it as celtic where playinga league match that day, this match was rangers versus celtic reserves so as such isnt wp:notability to wikipedia, so i am sorry this cant be added its more appiorate for the rangers wikiAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it was a friendly though... Wasn't it? yes it was friendly but by the reserves not he 1st team so not notable to wikipediaAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, at least we beat them 8-1 in 1934 lol

I think all us administrators of this page should have a quick look through Rangers F.C. and start updating some subjects on here, it's good to have a look through it and add some stuff to the subjects which are on this page and should add to the history of this great club in it's 141 year history. But obviouslly asking you guys to join me in doing this, you are the one's who can change and add text! Thanks Again. Aradioham (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

content wise the article is completely ther enothing really relevent to add to it, other rangers article yes but not the main one you are referring to, i like to remind you WE ARE NOT ADMINISTRATORS we are ll equal editors even celtic fans can edit it as long as it not voilating wikipedia policies and it meanfully souirced addition, ples stop treating wikipedia like a wp:forumAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right thanks Aradioham (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Rangers F.C. records and statistics, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ben Foster and Jimmy Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making unexplained changes to this article. If you think that some of the information is wrong you have obviously seen something that makes you think so. Please include an idea of what this is in your edit summary when you make changes, otherwise they are indistinguishable from vandalism and will be reverted. Britmax (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Sorry about that, but I shall include an edit summary in future cases. Aradioham (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]