User talk:Robcolbie

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Robcolbie, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as The Football Stadia Improvement Fund, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Football Stadia Improvement Fund[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Football Stadia Improvement Fund requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I wasn't fast enough to stop the speedy deletion here but after a little research it looks like this was a good article to bring into the encyclopedia based on the impact the organization has had on English Football. Thanks for contributing it! I was able to take the article offline for a bit and work on it before re-publishing. There are some more sources now and a claim of significance/importance but it could still use some help. If you're interested in the topic and have a moment, it would be great if you can continue contributing to the article. A good place to start might be the 14 other Wikipedia articles that link to the page. Chances are good that they already have some reliable sources to cite if you check the references section. Anyway - thanks for contributing! Hope you'll keep it up! --N8 22:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Football Stadia Improvement Fund[edit]

The article The Football Stadia Improvement Fund has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Giant Snowman 11:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Football Stadia Improvement Fund for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Football Stadia Improvement Fund is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Football Stadia Improvement Fund until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Giant Snowman 12:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023[edit]

Hello! I'm C.Fred. Your recent edit(s) to the page Irn-Bru appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False[edit]

if you read the website linked it explains why I've changed it. It is correct so I look forward to it being changed back Robcolbie (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Altered it again and it's changed back. The point of Wikipedia is to have factual information. Very poor that it keeps changing Robcolbie (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the source you cited did not clearly support your changes, while the source currently in the article does support the current text, it's not surprising that it was changed back. You'll need to discuss the relative merits of the source at the talk page and reach consensus that it should be changed for the article to change. —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It literally tells you where it started. What more could you need? 195.89.72.16 (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I don't get it either? Robcolbie (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason given in the source for cherry-picking that one origin story over the others. —C.Fred (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the others there's an explanation of why is the first. Simple really. Can you provide proof as to why the American claim is legitimate? If not then again I look forward to it being changed back Robcolbie (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the Études écossaises journal article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stating original and best doesn't constitute proof. It's a tag line the company uses... Robcolbie (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you bothered to read the article you're linking it also backs up what I've said Robcolbie (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. It doesn't mention any specific English chemist, and while it says a Scotsman was the first person placing advertisements for Iron Brew, he was selling a US product. —C.Fred (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down a little further. Robcolbie (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph number would be helpful. —C.Fred (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22 although you referred to it so surely you should have read it before quoting the article Robcolbie (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source clearly indicates that it is one theory advanced by a manufacturer and hardly an independent consensus. And I didn't write the article, but I verified the material against the source once your attempts to change it started. —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't check very well though if you didn't read enough to see that what I've stated is there which was my point. It also suggests that the American claim isn't worthy of note but the English claim is. Robcolbie (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see where you reached that conclusion. —C.Fred (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. Robcolbie (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Irn-Bru. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please refrain from removing sourced information from the article. Barry Wom (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. The first known recipe was in Belper as per previous article I linked. I'm just changing it back again. Defeats the purpose of Wikipedia if it doesn't state the truth Robcolbie (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Irn-Bru, you may be blocked from editing. As per above discussion, you clearly do not have consensus to make this change to the article. Barry Wom (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you vandalised it not me. As above I posted the truth. Read the article and I look forward to both your apology and it being corrected Robcolbie (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the Études Écossaises article, it confirms the origins of the drink quite unequivocally:

IRONBREW was first used commercially on 28 August 1889, a date which is compatible with claims by the MacNish firm that they had been selling Iron Brew since 1890 and which situates Maas & Waldstein as the first to commercialise a carbonated drink with this name. Barry Wom (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No.... it states where it was first mass produced in America. America isn't the world and they certainly didn't invent it. Kinda like baseball. Robcolbie (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need to read the article again, because it makes it clear that the Americans certainly did invent it.

the introduction of Iron Brew in the UK did not take place until the launch of Stevenson & Howell’s Iron Brew [...] in 1898 Barry Wom (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly doesn't unless you're reading the French version? Paragraph 22

22

With the American origins of the drink clearly lost from memory, rivalry appeared in the 1980s over whether the invention of Iron Brew could be attributed to English or Scottish producers, with attention being focused on historical soft drinks manufacturers in the Derby area. In 1983, journalist Tom Shields’ popular Glasgow Herald column drily recounted: “The English are now claiming they invented iron brew.” (1983, p. 8) This followed a claim made by English soft drinks producer Mandora St Clements Limited, which was based in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, that they were the original producers of Iron Brew. According to the firm, their Iron Brew had been produced in the Derby areas since the 1890s following its invention by a Belper chemist named Charles Southern whose original recipe they still used. In the article, Mandora’s operations manager John Hood was quoted as saying: Robcolbie (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? The very first sentence of this quote confirms that the drink has American origins. Barry Wom (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly making fun of the American claim. Hence why it states whether it originated in England or Scotland. It's obviously not going to say that after if its taking the American claim seriously... Robcolbie (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're misconstruing what the authors are saying here. They're neither "making fun of the American claim" nor stating that the drink originated in either England or Scotland. They're pointing out that the 1980s debate on whether the drink originated in England or Scotland ignored the fact that the drink originated in the States. Barry Wom (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. It clearly says whether it originated in England or Scotland. If it wasn't discounting the American 'claim' then it would just say it originated in America. Basic English. Robcolbie (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't assist any further with your reading comprehension.

To reiterate, please refrain from making this change to the article as you clearly do not have consensus to do so. Barry Wom (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't read English that's your problem. It tells you all you need to know so I will change it back as that's where its from. Don't like it then remove yourself from Wikipedia. Simple like you. Robcolbie (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Barry Wom (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just correcting it. If you choose to start a war with me then ban yourself Robcolbie (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. Barry Wom (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fail to see how you can do that when you're quite clearly the problem. I'm assuming that you won't be able to be involved in this and will get removed from being a moderator as you're clearly not capable of doing it. I look forward to my alterations being permanent and you getting a ban from further editing. Robcolbie (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robcolbie Being "correct" does not justify edit warring and re-inserting information without discussion or consensus (and it appears what you're adding is unsourced as well). Continuing to revert other edits is only allowed in a very limited number of contexts (such as reverting obvious vandalism), but even then is strongly advised against. Also, Barry Worm is not a "moderator". :3 F4U (they /it) 14:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally in the article that I've posted and everyone else links so I fail to see how it's unsourced. If he's not a moderator then why did it say he's the one discussing my changes above? I'm assuming then his conduct on here will be looked into as he's constantly changed the correct information so should be banned if you're threatening to ban me for editing? Robcolbie (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robcolbie No one is threatening to block anyone (yet). Barry Worm notified you because they're required to do so (so that you get a chance to respond). It seems pretty clear cut that you removed reliably sourced information from the article and replaced it with unsourced information, then edit warred after Barry reverted you. The source in the article clearly does not support your claim, but even if it did, this is a dispute over your conduct, not over your edits. I would suggest you read the Wikipedia policy on edit warring before you get yourself into more trouble. :3 F4U (they /it) 14:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I made a legitimate edit and then I'm the one being warned for warring? It's not my conduct that should be being questioned. It clearly states what I've said. I look forward to it being changed and an apology for this witch hunt. Robcolbie (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for currently having an approach to editing that is incompatible with a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just shows what a joke your site is then. Robcolbie (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming my block reason. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

incompatible with a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Robcolbie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

so basically your racist. I don't pretend America invented everything. You ban me for altering things to be true yet don't stop some silly child changing it back. You're a disgrace. Robcolbie (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Robcolbie (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #77235[edit]

is, unsurprisingly, declined. Definitely not compatible. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]