Talk:Neil Robertson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop making this mistake.[edit]

Resolved
 – Article was corrected and no comment since May 2010 suggest consenus. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robertson is NOT the first Australian to win the title. Horace Lindrum won it in 1952. Robertson is the first Australian to win it at the Crucible. Xowets (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Due to a disagreement with the Billiards Association and Control Council, Lindrum and McConachy were the only players to compete, with most professional players playing in the World Matchplay championship instead. As a result, Lindrum's title win is often ignored, with Cliff Thorburn (Can), Ken Doherty (Ire) and Neil Robertson (Aus) usually regarded as the only non-British World Champions." (from List of world snooker champions). This fact is well-sourced. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could keep it in and add/change the wording to. 1st offical Aussie world Champ, after Lindrum's unoffical win in 1952. Keeps everyone happy and the reader more informed. But i would like to see a source for the unoffical claim KnowIG 00:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What you referenced there doesn't even prove your point. 'Often ignored' and 'not officially recognised' are not the same thing at all. Therefore, whether you like it or not, Horace Lindrum IS the official World Professional Snooker Champion for 1952. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.128.84 (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've appended "in the modern era". While Horace Lindrum's win is often discounted it is factually incorrect to state Robertson is the first Australian ever to win it. Similarly with Hendry, he is often regarded as holding the record for championship wins but in actual fact Joe davis, but most snooker commentators only tend to go by the records of the modern era these days. Betty Logan (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference says first Australian world champion, don't remove references, and sections without explanation. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't abide by Betty Logan's logic (about the commentators only mentioning the modern game) because all tournament they've been talking about how close Eddie Charlton was to winning it, and his chances came before the 'modern' era of the Embassy sponsorship and the Crucible.195.195.128.84 (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two of Eddie Charton's finals came in the modern era. Betty Logan (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore that, I wrote it thinking you were agreeing with Armbrust.195.195.128.84 (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside his mother in her listing as the secretary of his limited company lists her nationality as British. Might he have an Australian father and a British mother albeit he was obviously born in Australia, brought up there and identifies as Australian. 2A02:8084:255D:9380:400F:8F63:9355:4494 (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas[edit]

This still seems to be confusing some people. When the BBC refer to "overseas" players, they mean outside of the UK. Ireland is split into two parts - Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the UK while the Republic is not, and the players from the Republic are classed as "overseas" players in the BBC terminology. In that sense Ken Doherty from the Republic is classed as an "overseas" while Alex Higgins and Dennis Taylor are not, despite then having to cross the same sea to compete.

In the modern game since 1969 (when the knock-out format was introduced and all pros were eligible to enter) there have been three overseas winners i.e. three non-UK champions: Thorburn, Doherty and now Robertson. Since Snooker is considered a British and Irish game, sometimes when referring to international winners "international" usually refers to players outside of the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

When pundits and journalists refer to Robertson as the third overseas/foreigner/international player they mean non-UK, and if they refer to him as the second overseas/foreigner/international player they are obviously excluding Ireland from that category. It's important to be clear on this and perhaps avoid confusing terminology.

Resricting the context to the modern game avoids the Horace Lindrum issue. In regards to this, while the WPBSA generally ignores his win it is important to note that this is a point of view and the fact remains he did win it - much of the Australian press for instance are reporting that Robertson is the second Australian to win it. It is not our place to adopt a stance on this issue, but to clearly report the facts as they are: Lindrum won it, but due to a dispute between the players and the governing body an alternative tournament was established and Lindrum's win is often disregarded by other professionals. Betty Logan (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Whatever the Australian media may say, snooker players here in Australia are quite content with the "modern era" qualifier that excludes Horace Lindrum. Anyone who knows anything about the game here has a lot of respect for Lindrum as a player, but knows that his world title was almost embarrassingly trivial under the circumstances. 138.217.153.239 (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames[edit]

Resolved

While Armbrust has provided a citation to the use of "Melbourne Machine" and "Aussie Ace" [note it was "ace" in the citation], these are not nickname but merely ephermeral titles invented either by a journalist or by an online website looking business. "The Thunder from Down Under" is Robertason's widely known nickname and the only one for this article. bigpad (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Melbourne Machine is certainly a nickname - one of the previous MCs used to introduce him using it. I have a World Snooker reference so I will add that in. Betty Logan (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I say the latest source for "Aussie Ace" doesn't cut it as well. It simply uses the phrase as a description not as a reference to their nickname. We might as well say Ronnie O'Sullivan's nickname is "Controversial Snooker Player". Not to mention the possible unreliable source as a bookmaker. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sources for this nickname: World Snooker, Daily Record, This Is Bristol, The Star, Highland News, Entrepreneur (magazine) and Daily Record (again). Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Aussie ace" is the same as saying "Southampton star" or "Belfast battler!" It is *not a nickname - the "a" in "ace" is lowercase, for a start, in all the articles you cited. "Melbourne Machine" is ok, as it's a genuine citation, if only one World Snooker. Armbrust - please don't be re-inserting Aussie Ace. Nicknames is a big weakness in Wikipedia, unfortunately. bigpad (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of 'Year'[edit]

The article contains a number of contradictions in the use of "season" and "year". The "Performance and rankings timeline" table lists seasons while "Tournament finals" lists years. Why don't you replace 'year' with 'season' in the latter, to make the information clear? From the info. in the second table, it was perfectly understandablwe why I wrote Robertson had won a ranking event title every year since 2006 bigpad (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Th current BBC reference that's being warred over actually uses the words "British Isles" and not "United Kingdom and Ireland". So in fact we should, and I will, correct the text. We are often told the text does not match the reference, and that we must adhere to what the reference says, so I hope we have agreement here; using words other than those in the reference is original research. LevenBoy (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clariify the situation. British Isles was the original usage, and remained until this edit [1]. LevenBoy (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please clarify exactly which source and quote the text? I've been over the source twice at the end of the disputed sentence and see only the UK and Ireland mentioned. I would prefer to use the UK and Ireland wording since it is more specific but I agree that the text should follow the source, so if the "British Isles" terminology is used I don't really have a problem. Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 28-year-old is the first player from outside the UK and Ireland to win the world title since Canadian Cliff Thorburn's victory in 1980. That's what the source states.Mo ainm~Talk 20:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added the dead link tag, and used the link for UK and Ireland. Less contentious.--Domer48'fenian' 20:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No the source doesn't state that. Here's the source [2]. "UK and Ireland" is too controversial and is clear POV when the source says otherwise, so I'm restoring the more accurate version. LevenBoy (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And also, as I already pointed out, the original edit used British Isles until some ip pushed POV and changed it to UK&I even though it wasn't backed up by the ref. LevenBoy (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK so we have two BBC sources using the two alternative wordings. That means it is down to consensus among editors. I agree with Betty Logan that we should use a precise term given the option rather than an ambiguous/controversial term. From the look of the above that is the majority view. --Snowded TALK 20:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded, study both sources in detail, and the words in the article, and you will see that I am right. Facts; the source I'm using matches the words in the text precisely. The source others are using does not. That source is talking about something completely different - yes, it's confusing to start with but check it out. LevenBoy (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Betty Logan and Snowded. The preciser term is better. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 20:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't match the source  ! ! ! LevenBoy (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other source says "the first player from outside the UK and Ireland" so both phrases conform with sources. My comments above stand. You really would have more credibility if you edited on any other subject., SPAs to my mind are the cause of too much conflict on wikipedia. --Snowded TALK 20:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read the source Levin Boy it is a couple of lines up in blue you cant miss it, or are you just going to edit war? Mo ainm~Talk 20:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For heavens sake read it, won't you! The source you are going on about makes no mention of being the first player in ranking tournaments, it's about Cliff Thorburn or something. It is a source about something else. LevenBoy (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)SPA account what do you expect? Now Levin is up to 3rr we can expect the alter ego of lemon monday to appear to take up the edit warring cudgel. --Snowded TALK 20:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Robertson, who rises to number two in the world, had trailed 5-3 but having edged ahead, kept his nose in front despite not being at his best. He sunk the last ball of a tense, error-ridden final at 0054 BST. The 28-year-old is the first player from outside the UK and Ireland to win the world title since Canadian Cliff Thorburn's victory in 1980. Does the source not say that? can you really not read? Mo ainm~Talk 21:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CURRENT TEXT - The 28-year-old is the first player from outside the UK and Ireland to win the world title since Canadian Cliff Thorburn's victory in 1980.The 28-year-old is the first player from outside the UK and Ireland to win the world title since Canadian Cliff Thorburn's victory in 1980.
BBC SOURCE - His fourth title makes Robertson the most successful player from outside the British Isles in ranking tournaments.
Now Snowded, tell me I'm wrong, and if you just once more refer to me as an SPA or make any more insinuations of sock puppetry I'll report it. LevenBoy (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are a SPA LevenBoy and you edit in tandem with another SPA LemonMonday, so I think alter ego is a fair enough phrase. Feel free to report this if you want, and feel your own conduct can bear investigation --Snowded TALK 21:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mo aim, your source is something else, about Cliff Thorburn. LevenBoy (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again have you read the source? Mo ainm~Talk 21:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW the current text is this: "There he defeated 2006 champion Graeme Dott 18–13 to become only the third player from outside of the UK (and only the second from outside of UK and Ireland), and the first Australian, to become world champion in the modern era of the game" Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 21:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this says UK and Ireland. This link is dead and was reverted by LevenBoy which is just a blind revert. They then another blind revert. Here is another blind revert. Please do not disrupt the page to make a point. --Domer48'fenian' 21:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:Yes, your source says The 28-year-old is the first player from outside the UK and Ireland to win the world title since Canadian Cliff Thorburn's victory in 1980.. So tell me, how does that equate to the current edit-warred-out text of His fourth title makes Robertson the most successful player from outside the British Isles in ranking tournaments. ? LevenBoy (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In one of the edits, the correct source was replaced by a wrong source (which used a different terminology), and has still not been corrected. This explains the above confusion over the sources and wording. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"But Robertson, who has yet to win a world title, scoffed at suggestions he could now be considered the game's most successful player from outside Britain and Ireland." That is in your source LevenBoy? --Domer48'fenian' 21:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source was changed by Levin Boy here Mo ainm~Talk 21:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're a flat out liar Mo ainm! Go back to this edit [3] which was before User:LemonMonday made his edit which started all this off. Now, does the text being referenced match the second paragraph of the source? If you look carefully you'll see that it does - EXCEPT - in the source it says British Isles and in the text it says UK and Ireland. So who's right here. Also, as I pointed out above, originally the text said British Isles until back in May last year an ip changed it without discussion to UK & I. LevenBoy (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LevenBoy, the source you want to cite also says "But Robertson, who has yet to win a world title, scoffed at suggestions he could now be considered the game's most successful player from outside Britain and Ireland." That is in your source LevenBoy? So even your source is conflicting using both terms. You choose to only use one of them. --Domer48'fenian' 21:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) x2 I'll remind you that calling another editor a liar is a personal attack, do you deny the edit made in the diff I provided? Also as an SPA it's great the way you cherry pick what you want from the source you and your SPA friend edit warred to insert namely most successful player from outside Britain and Ireland. Mo ainm~Talk 21:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Domer - Quite right, but in the second paragrpah it says His fourth title makes Robertson the most successful player from outside the British Isles in ranking tournaments. and that is the text being referenced. Only problem is, in the article it says His fourth title makes Robertson the most successful player from outside the UK and Ireland in ranking tournaments. So why is the source difeerent from the text? LevenBoy (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spot on LevenBoy. A source is being used to back up a statement, but the words of the source used in the article have been amended to support politcal POV. The users above are quite well aware that you are right on this point but are being deliberately obstructive by throwing in red herrings all over the place. This one couldn't be more clear. LemonMonday Talk 07:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tweedledum and Tweeedledee in their Disney incarnation I see, maybe the odd Byrom manifestation would avoid the inevitable conclusion. Otherwise sources support both phrases so lets use the least controversial version shall we. --Snowded TALK 08:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, let's fix the text of the article so that it matches the source. I can't wait fo the next time that you whine about a source not saying British Isles when the text does. LemonMonday Talk 19:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can this issue please be resolved here without continuous edit warring? I've restored to what seems the 'pre-battle' state. RashersTierney (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The text has both versions and as far as I can see all editors (5/6 depending on how you count reverts on the article) are agreed bar the twin headed SPAs of LemonMonday and LevenMonday and the latest Irvine22 sock --Snowded TALK 06:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded, you're a fraud. You have us believe you're some sort of academic, but you can't even write without demonstrating an almost dyslexic confusion. You still refuse to answer the key point - why should the words of a source be changed to fit political POV? As to "consensus", don't forget that the majority of editors here are effectively a single Irish nationalist voice talking and editing as one. LemonMonday Talk 06:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a failure to apply WP:AGF to edit warring are we? The sources support both wordings LemonBoy so it is down to consensus. Oh, I am partially dyslexic by the way, so I don't regard that term as a form of abuse. --Snowded TALK 06:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me, the majority wishs to use UK and Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No, they simply don't. The words used are almost a direct quote from the source, except of course BI has been replaced by UK&I. I've got to say this, regardless of AGF, NPA or anything else, but you've shown yourself to be a duplicitous manipulator, and those who suspected this all along can use this current example as clear evidence. LemonMonday Talk 06:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-GoodDay, your interjections are worthless and irritating, just go away. They also often result - as here - in edit conflicts. LemonMonday Talk 06:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR, begs to differ on who's being the irritant. GoodDay (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'll find I'm not in breach of it, but hold on there: think about Snowded - is he also an edit warrior? Yes, I hear you say from across the ocean. Quite right. If you want to complain abot warring compalin about him as well. Have you noticed there's always edit warring and aggravation around all hiw WIkipedia interests. As for this snooker one, he reverts just the same as the Irish nats and everyone else. LemonMonday Talk 06:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know Lemon, your comments are increasingly reminiscent of serial sock Irvine22 who did operate through proxies as I remember it before he was finally blocked. You have gone to 3rr and two separate occasions on this article as has your alter ego. GIven the clear consensus it could be argued that such behaviour is vandalism. You are now engaged in the standard tactic adopted by you and LevinBoy which is to create a lot of noise in the hope that any reviewing admin will cry a plague on both your houses. It has worked before, it may work this time but sooner or later such behaviour catches up on you --Snowded TALK 06:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Make that another editor who agrees with the consensus on the wording of the reference. Bjmullan (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But Mullan, you're shit hot on references. As far as you're concerned source and text must match. Even a casual glance at your edit history throws up many instances of "not what the reference says", so how do you explain your position here? And Snowdud, please learn to spell. LemonMonday Talk 09:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, just looking for consensus, I don't quite see it. Discounting Mullan and GoodDay we have Domer, Mo ainm and Snowdud wanting to disregard the true wording of the source, and then me and LevenBoy in favour of using the actual words of the source. Armbrush has left the debate (see his talk page) and the other contributors appear just to want to use the source correctly but haven't looked at it in detail. So -- no consensus there then. LemonMonday Talk 09:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LemonMonday, I do you the courtesy of using you full Wikipedia name, please do me the same. I think I have requested this from you in the past. Bjmullan (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re LemonMonday: Even if I left the debate my opinion remain. And if there is no consensus, then it should remain UK&I, because at the beginning this was used. No consensus to change it. My request to fully protect this page was accepted for 2 weeks. (My last comment on this debate) Regards, Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 10:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is clearly to leave it as "UK and Ireland". And, as a long-standing contributor to snooker articles, that is fine by me. bigpad (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See comments at User talk:Ged UK. LemonMonday Talk 20:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, leave it as UK and Ireland as no consensus to change it. bigpad (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right across Wikipedia, wherever there's an issue with British Isles, you will never, ever, get any sort of consensus. What you will get are various groups weighing in with their POV. On this occasion the article has attracted a substantial contingent from the Irish nationalist group and it therefore appears to be a consensus, but it isn't. What we do have though, is a source that says one thing and a text that says something different, so are you saying you think there's a consensus to disregard the wording of the source? LemonMonday Talk 12:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Argument over LemonMonday, you are not raising any new points and the consensus is very very clear --Snowded TALK 13:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You, Snowded, have not answered one single point that's been raised, so I invite you to look at the explanation I gave over at User:Ged UK's page and give me your opinion on the facts as presented. LemonMonday Talk 13:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the 2 sources-in-question (numbers 6 & 7), the former uses British Isles & the latter UK and Ireland. I'm gonna break my neutrality here & recommend using British Isles next to source #6; UK and Ireland next to source #7. Another option would be to dump one of the 2 sources. GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, thank you for giving an opinion. However, it's worth bearing in mind that the two sources relate to entirely different matters, so it's not appropriate to drop one or the other (and I think you mean the other way round, surely - UK&I next to source #7 and BI next to source #6). LemonMonday Talk 14:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protection and civility[edit]

I've protected this page so that the article remains stable whilst consensus is formed. You may find that a request for comment, third opinion or other dispute resolution mechanisms helpful here.

However, consider this fair warning; incivility will not be tolerated. GedUK  11:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is already well in favor of keeping it as "UK & Ireland". That's what the original source said and that's how the article remained since May 6, 2010. The edit was introduced as "UK and Ireland"[4], briefly changed to "British Isles"[5], then to "Britain and Ireland"[6] and finally back to "UK and Ireland"[7]. The recent change was made despite LemonMonday's telling another editor not to add or remove the term "British Isles" without prior agreement on a special page that had to be created because of disruption from multiple parties.[8][9] That's add or remove; for their first ever edits to this article the term was added, and there was no prior agreement or attempt to discuss it there or on the talk page of this article. This has been a long-term problem especially for both LemonMonday and LevenBoy who have very few edits outside of this issue; it is extremely disruptive and stretches across scores of articles which are routinely protected after things like this. Anyone familiar with WP:BISE will tell you this. This article is merely the latest target. There is a 3RR thread just rotting away over there because everyone is sick to death of dealing with this. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 12:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have 2 sources for BI, 1 for UK&I. And we have a bunch of people edit warring over which one to use, citing their own POV's, and the local consensus (derived by not so local editors arriving as part of the usual not so disinterested tag team, who have as much interest in this article as Lemon Monday ever did). As fucking useless as BISE was at handling this tedious bollocks, even it was pretty clear what happened in these cases, or at least the admins were. Anyway, BISE is irrelevant, the admins who took it under their wing eventually fucked off due to it being swamped under a tide of TE, game playing, fake 'civility' and faux offence, all of the sort you see above, and Lemon Monday has been sutably dispatched as a content opponent using the more traditional methods, so everyone can go on their way, suitably reassured that this article is now 'neutral'. Pfft. MickMacNee (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An initial promoter of BISE, I concluded months ago, that it was a failure. In retrospect, I seen it as having morphed into a vehicle to promote either PoV. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Could you add this "| Century break = 159", to the infobox. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 11:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 2[edit]

Can someone remove the statement that he is the current world champion? John Higgins won the 2011 championship. It would be pretty lame to leave such a glaring error in the intro for three more days because of the squabble above. Alex Middleton (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done GedUK  12:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request[edit]

The article mentions that he became a top 32 player in the 2004/5 season, he didn't it was the 2005/06 season that became a top 32 player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.3 (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neil Robertson (snooker player). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Neil Robertson (snooker player). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic: page move?[edit]

I want to rename this page "Neil Robertson" over the existing disambiguation page which only has two entries, one of which is a little-known mathematician who is getting barely 10 views per day. The snooker player is clearly the primary topic, with well over 1,000 views per day. This suggestion was brought up on the dab talk page several months ago by KnightMove but I've only just come across it myself. So if no-one objects, I can go ahead and do it in the next day or two (unless anyone else beats me to it). Cheers. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised that I won't be able to move the page myself because the target page already exists as the dab, so it's not straightforward. I've put in a page move request – please visit and contest if you disagree. Thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Video game addition and its impact in his performance[edit]

He acknowledged that he was addicted to video games (to escape from the pressure) and that it seriously impacted his performance after his first World Championship: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/apr/21/neil-robertson-says-video-game-addiction-damaged-snooker-career El Pantera (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is already in the prose. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neil_Robertson&oldid=1210076341"