User talk:Nedao.glasgow

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SineBot, this is most appreciated. I'm a wikilearner so I really appreciate the help. Best, Nedao.G Nedao.glasgow (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect intellectual property rights - do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view when editing articles - this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! DanielRigal (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hun (disambiguation). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. DanielRigal (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information Daniel. I was unaware that if people repeatedly undid my edits, and I reverted them I would be reported for vandalism. Please do not report me for this. I will abide by the three reverts in 24 hours rule and also utilise the talk pages to endeavor to resolve disputes. Best, Nedao.glasgow (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed tag in Sectarianism in Glasgow

Only trying to help also. I was assuming you'd accidentally moved and forgotten to remove the citation needed tag after providing me with the requested citation, hence removing it for you. You've now put it back in place and I'm confused as to why: are you yourself requesting a citation, in which case can you elaborate please as the preceding sentence is cited? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you're trying to help too Mutt Lunker. There is a broken link where I've put requested citation. We could leave the broken link where it is. Remove it completely and put requested citation. Or include the broken link (since this may help others locate a new one) and also include requested citation? I prefer the latter, wiki seems ambigious about what to do under the circumstances. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see, not really the right tag; {{Dead link}}'s what you're after. I'd also suggest writing an edit summary for each edit, even if you think the intention is clear. Aye Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mutt Lunker, much appreciated. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I would be careful on the Rangers article. Check out Wikipedia:Edit warring. I wouldn't want anyone getting blocked for this. You both seem to be discussing and edit warring. You should stick to the discussion and if you can't resolve your differences then there are other routes to go down. Jack forbes (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If one has made four reverts in 24 hours, would an editor be in violation of the three reverts rule? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They would, though I would be careful if you were thinking of making a report as it takes two to edit war. I do think it may be time to ask for outside opinion on this. Jack forbes (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend to be in violation of the three edits rule. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly warning. Jack forbes (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --John (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, thanks for the info. Please would you help me with something else. Is it ok to discuss these things in the Rangers discussion page as much as I like or will I be in violation of the three revert rule there? Also, I don't think I was *technically* in violation of the three reverts rule. Please would you clarify. Thanks, best, nedao. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing in talk is definitely the way to go here. The three revert rule is not an entitlement and users may be blocked even though not technically in violation of the rule. Best wishes, and let me know if I can be any help to you. --John (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic And THEIR fans

I see Nedao that you are determined to 'get one over' rangers. Nedao for you first point. I don’t know about you but I remember well when that story came out in the press. It does not say who the person is they remain anonymous, so it could have been anyone who made that up (if I remember correctly it was shortly after rangers had beaten celtic coincidence?) The person never made any complaint to police or rangers fc but decided to go straight to the herald or whoever it was, does that not strike you as a bit odd?

Your next point about some reporter or journalist who has seen someone’s (it could have been one sick person who wrote it after all did they ever think about that) take on the world.

Amoruso i believe stated that he had said nothing remotely racist

And your last point that you kindly keep referring to, let me ask you this, what is worse, yours statement or, the worst case of racism ever seen at any british football ground in the history of the sport (mark walters debut at celtic park)

A photographer for the club's official publication caught with hundreds of child porn photographs in his locker at the piggery

Their then manager witnessed shouting the same sectarian obscenities to Rangers fans that same day. One of their former players (who also played for us) having to decline an invitation to take part for both sides (a half each) in a charity match because of fears for his safety due to threats from celtic fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeymanman (talk • contribs) 17:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem quite bitter about all this unreferenced material Monkey. Did you just find out about Rangers player Edu being racially abused today by a couple of Rangers fans? Looks like Spiers is right "For years now Celtic Park – unlike Ibrox – has been largely free of sectarian or racist chanting."^[1] And to use child abuse to score points about football. Are you a proper man Monkey? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree i was shocked when i read that, i only wish edu had stopped a police officer to get the person arrested, named and locked up. I had actually posted that before i found out believe it or not. You are one to talk about 'point scoring' are you not? Thats your be all and end all about wikipedia. I just find it SICK and always have done that celtic fans continually cover up things like child abuse which happened right under your nose in your 'paradise'. Why is that not in the celtic fc article, oh i forgot you lot are the masters at cover ups.(not to mention the club photographer caught with hundreds of child porn in his locker at 'paradise' SICK)(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I think it's right you raise the Edu thing although I think you got your facts wrong on it. Shall we put it on the Rangers FC wiki page too? I'll let you put it up if you want. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would love that wouldnt you, get another tally mark up their. Shall we discuss on the celtic fc page to include the cover up of sexual abuse at 'paradise'. No didnt think so.(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You know you are starting to sound like one of those bjk guys that embarrass your club. But anyways, shall I put Edu on the Rangers web page or should you? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that racist now to sound your distaste at covering up child abuse. Shall we discuss on the celtic fc page whether or not that should be on it?(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Do you sing bjk at games Monkeymanman. You know I don't think your club likes to encourage that kind of thing. Best stick to TFS, if that floats your boat. Now what about that Edu thing? Reminds me abit of the Rangers fans abuse of Mark Walters. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No i dont sing anything at games actualy, dont chant (before you mention it) either. You like avoiding the question dont you. Although it never actualy said anything about what was done / said in either case, it still does not match up to the worst racial abuse in the history of british football at 'paradise'. Why dont we put that on the celtic fc page?(Monkeymanman (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Stop telling lies Monekymanman. Also where is the piggery? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to sound like one of those fans forums where insults are passed back and forth. This is an encyclopedia guys where the aim is to improve the article. Jack forbes (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Jack. How would you recommend that I reply to someone that uses words like "the piggery" and makes stuff up? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I would recommend you both start from scratch. If it continues there is the option of deleting anything you think is insulting, asking an admin to intervene or taking any grievance to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents. Trust me, starting from scratch is the best option. Jack forbes (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jack. It's all this talk of the piggery and child abuse. I think you might agree it's unacceptable behaviour. It may be best starting from stratch, but would I be able to find support amongst other Editors, if someone is telling lies and using inappropriate language on this (ie the piggery)? best, nedao. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you do want to ask an admin for a bit of advice I would recommend admin Rockpocket. He has already contributed to the Rangers talk page and is always even handed. Jack forbes (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jack. I think you might know what these people are like too but I'll consult rockpocket, if I need someone to discuss with further. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really have got some cheek NEDAO. You sit on wikipedia only to get at the 'other team', you come onto my discussion page and post something attacking rangers FC which i delete because i think it was ridiculous for you to attack me directly (you posted on MY discussion page first, attacking me) and then you get the needle (thats a figure of speech by the way incase you had not heard of it) because I post something on your page showing terrible acts that your celtic fans have commited. I was refering to an incident at parkhead about child abuse because i think that is 'very serious' as serious as racism and covering it up is even worse, seeing as you are intent on posting everything about racism and rangers fc on its article i think it was only fair to discuss similar disgusting things on the celtic fc page and see if you were willing to do so. But of course you are not interested in doing that are you.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Talking about improving articles i have improved doesens of them but meanwhile you are only interested about attacking rangers fc, take a break.(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

And in terms of your use of "the piggery"? I'll come back to the other issues once we've dealt with that. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What lies have i told, on this page, before i come back to other issues?(Monkeymanman (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You wrote: "the worst case of racism ever seen at any british football ground in the history of the sport (mark walters debut at celtic park)"

Mark Walters wrote: "we were playing Hearts and that was the worst of all" [1].

Now we have proved you are a liar about racism, let's move to what you call "the piggery"? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RUBBISH, did the hearts fans dress up in fancy dress monkey suits?(Monkeymanman (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Walters is quoted as saying it was worse at Hearts. Who is telling porky pies then: him or you?

Now, let's move on to what you mean by "the piggery", shall we? Nedao.glasgow (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Consider this a warning over your repeated edit warring, particularly on the long-term effort to add a "controversy" section to the Walter Smith article. This is not a playground for you to pick fights with Rangers fans or to have endless, unproductive debates over sectarianism. I've warned Monkeymanman (talk · contribs) as well. You've both been lucky to escape blocks so far, but don't think that state of affairs will continue unless your editing pattern significantly changes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, excuse me? What are you talking about? I was edit warring with monkeymanman over Walter Smith? I'm sorry but unless you can provide evidence that I was edit warring with monkeymanman over Walter Smith, I can only think this accusation is complete garbage. And if this is complete garbage, I would like to consult a senior editor on how to deal with someone telling lies about my character on wiki. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have reinserted contentious material after it was removed on no less than seven occasions stretching back to August: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Whether or not you were edit warring specifically with monkeymanman or not, you were certainly edit warring. That needs to stop. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So edits stretching back over months are grounds for edit warring? I think you are talking nonsense to back up a claim which was very weak.

Admit it Chris you saw monkemanman wanting to engage in silly games and you mistakenly presumed I would go for his bate. Unfortunately for you, I'm not especially interested in what monkeymanman has to say. Please don't come and bother me with his comments either. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is especially because these incidents stretch back over two months that it is edit warring. If I were you I'd be less keen on trying to ascribe motives to people who are trying to ensure that you don't get yourself blocked. Anyway, we're done here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did making melodramatic claims help to ensure anyone didn't get blocked? Let's face it, you seen a problem with monkeymanman and mistakenly tried to lump me in with him, based on nothing. Nedao.glasgow (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cfc.csc for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by MuZemike 00:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

^ [9]

[1] [9]

[1]