User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2018/May
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Hippo43. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
May 2018
Your first attempt at removing bona-fide citations may have been good faith, your second removal of them was doubtful. Your third attempt seems somewhat disruptive. Batternut (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. You may disagree with my view on this, but "doubtful" and "seems disruptive" don't sound like they are assuming good faith.
- I didn't intend to remove citations in my first edit, just to add the 'disputed' tag. My bad. Was it also an error when you removed the tag in your revert, or do you disagree that the point is disputed?
- Also, their status as "bona fide citations" is exactly what is questioned, as the lengthy and ongoing discussion shows. They are the view of one historian, and the opinion of an advocacy group; they obviously don't establish fact. --hippo43 (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Description as a "misnomer" was agreed by this RfC. Your ongoing dispute is about attribution style (even though you apparently want to reverse the previous RfC). Batternut (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining to me what "my ongoing dispute" is about. The numerous objections to the word and how it is used show it is obviously disputed. --hippo43 (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- Description as a "misnomer" was agreed by this RfC. Your ongoing dispute is about attribution style (even though you apparently want to reverse the previous RfC). Batternut (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
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. Thank you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
May 2018
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN talk to me 15:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Edit war again on that article and I will topic ban you. --NeilN talk to me 15:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
18 May 2018
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Cathy Newman
Greetings. Please remember that biographies of living persons must be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone. Wikipedia biographies do not exist to disparage or attack their subjects. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting in touch, though your messages aren't really appropriate. None of my edits have attacked or disparaged Newman, or anyone else. If you have an edit in mind and think I have violated some policy somehow, please be specific. Thank you again. --hippo43 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Graeme Souness: "Signing someone who was a different religion or different colour felt completely normal. It wasn't an issue. It improved Rangers then allowed them to grow as a football club after that." What part of that do you not understand? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back to me. Please try to be civil.
- The part I don't understand is why you think this has anything to do with not signing catholics. I don't see anything in Souness' words, or more importantly in reliable independent sources, that says Rangers had any policy about not signing black or jewish players, or that this somehow relates to them not signing catholics. It's irrelevant. I'm going to remove it again. Please don't restore this material without sources which explicitly state that this was connected to not signing catholics.
- Perhaps I'm missing something - feel free to try to explain. --hippo43 (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
It's connected because it was part of a wider shift under Souness, the "Souness revolution". Instead of just being a club for (mostly) white Scottish protestants, Souness signed whoever he felt was the best player available. That's what he has saying in that quote. Rangers didn't have an explicit policy against any religion, nationality or colour, but it was surmised that they must have an anti-Catholic policy because they were a Scottish football club, Catholics make up a significant minority of the Scottish population (especially in and around Glasgow) and they hadn't signed any prominent Catholics. Not signing a black player for 50+ years wasn't a big deal because there were relatively few black people in Scotland, unlike in England where there had been significant numbers breaking through (e.g. the "Three Degrees" at West Brom), and the other Scottish clubs had signed few (if any) black players either. So by signing England players, black players, Jewish players, it was all part of a sea change that eventually led to the Catholic policy being broken. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I see what you are saying, but I don't really agree. Your points about Catholics and the Scottish population and not having black players are synthesis. The policy that the article covers is really simple - they wouldn't sign Catholics. Your sentence "Rangers didn't have an explicit policy against any religion, nationality or colour, but it was surmised that they must have an anti-Catholic policy" is just wrong. Nothing was surmised. It was an explicit policy - they just didn't acknowledge it publicly. It was widely discussed in the media in the 1970s and 80s, and there are many sources which confirm it existed, and none that I've found which say it was about having a team of white protestants. There were no similar protests when Walters signed, for example.
- As I understand the term, the 'Souness revolution' was always about buying good players, particularly the English internationals he brought in. Buying Johnston didn't happen until Souness had been in place for 3 years, and after David Murray had arrived. --hippo43 (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I can see what you are saying, but it's a SYNTH (connection) that has been made by Graeme Souness. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- 1 I don't think it has been explicitly made by Souness. I think you're reading something into his quotes that isn't really there - that signing a Catholic followed on from signing the others. You could equally ask why did he not sign a Catholic player in his first three years if it was so important.
- 2 Souness's own writing is not the best source for this. Independent secondary sources are preferred here over one person's own explanation/self-promotion. This article isn't about the Souness revolution in general. --hippo43 (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't have the source material to hand, but I believe that Souness has also said that he considered signing Catholics earlier than 1989 (see also the quote about John Collins and Ray Houghton), but was concerned about whether they had the right mentality to cope with the pressure of being the "first" Catholic. Which is what they found in Johnston. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, he has said that. The point is that Souness's own version of things is not independent, and autobiographies do tend to show their writers in a positive light.
- You could equally say that the Rangers fans wouldn't have accepted it until Souness had delivered some success. Or that the Rangers board, pre-David Murray, wouldn't have gone for it. IIRC, Souness wrote that Murray didn't exactly get support from some of the other directors. --hippo43 (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't have the source material to hand, but I believe that Souness has also said that he considered signing Catholics earlier than 1989 (see also the quote about John Collins and Ray Houghton), but was concerned about whether they had the right mentality to cope with the pressure of being the "first" Catholic. Which is what they found in Johnston. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)