User talk:Footballdaft

Rangers F.C. trying to get a consensus

Please review your response and update it accordingly if required witht he updated question that is more neutral--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:01, 23 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. 22:39, 9 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.)

Directors

i know most other articles have it, but we need to remove it and keep it on the ownership page, it useful to have here if we didnt have the problem of people will still bring up new company new club etc, so it simpler not to have it then we have less of a reason for those debates. note i dnt think your wrong but for the sake of edit warring it best not to have it thereAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sam Allardyce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Collins (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) 12:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Green

Hello, Footballdaft. You have new messages at Bladeboy1889's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've added some more info. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fanscruff

You should only have coaches who are notable (senior coaches and other coaches with Wiki pages) and directors at Sevco, not the tea boy etc that nobody outside his immediate family would care about!Salty1984 (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well over to you...

"A consensus should be got for this" - well consensus requires dialogue and you have not even attempted to discuss this matter. You want to include details of the chairman of the company that operates Rangers FC and have given no explanation as to why it should be here when this article is about the club and not the company. Over to you. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported

Hi Sparhelda. I'm afraid you are now one of a very few editors whom I have ever felt the need to report for their behaviour. You have now made the same edit 3 times in a 9 hour period on an article with a one revert rule in an attempt to force your opinion. That is not acceptable conduct, which I hope on reflection you too will realise. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]