User talk:Aspirex

Welcome!

Hello, Aspirex, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few 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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs 2000 11:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate matches in Australian rules football

Hi, how are you going, I appreciate you're input. Yeah I was going to add one more, from Dean Laidley, I wanted to get more of a Western Australian perspective. I've only got one. Yeah I respectfully disagree about the Mick McGuane quote. The person interviewing him said about a State of Origin game saying "it's a big day for a player" and he responded "it certainly is, this is what it's all about". I think from the context of what was said, it was clear he was saying "this is what it's all about" in referring to State of Origin being what it's all about, being the pinnacle.Qwermnbv12 (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFL

Hi mate, I suggest you take a look at WikiProject AFL if you love your footy, and also Category:VFL/AFL players. Drop us a line with any questions mate. Cheers, R o gerthat ^Talk 10:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== AFL season article naming convention ==

As a participant of WikiProject AFL I thought you might be interested in this. I have started a vote to get a consensus on the naming convention for AFL season articles. You can participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL#AFL season article naming convention. Cheers. Remy B 13:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Gibbs Cup

In your edit to Bryce Gibbs your edit summary said:

(slight re-ordering; included "Bryce Gibbs Cup" as a separate section which will be expendable as his career progresses)

I am not sure how the (fictional) Bryce Gibbs Cup could be expanded as the point of the joke was that the loser of that particular match would get to draft Gibbs in the 2006 AFL Draft? I would think that the "Cup" belongs well and truly in his pre-AFL Career section. Pudgey 10:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Week

Aspirex

As a former Monash student who was heavily involved in the Activities collective and Green Week from 1997-2002 it would be nice to see recognition given to the history of particular events, rather than just stating what happens now. It is important to recognise that the scavenger hunt has changed over the years (particularly with reference to issues like the addition of the pre-list) because of the efforts that were made by participants in doing things such as the long road trips in 24 hours. It is also important to note that while the "hardest to obtain" was from Farm Week, the scav hunt list traditionally included a "hardest to obtain" item to make them think.

Let me know what you think.

Charmlessbloke 08:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Robert Menzies Lecture

Hi. Can you tell me where you got the names of the lecturers? Only a handful are mentioned on the website. Cheers - JackofOz 01:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) JackofOz 12:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Levi Greenwood

An article that you have been involved in editing, Levi Greenwood, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaxson Barham. Thank you. Mattinbgn\^talk 01:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I request your comment in this discussion for a dispute pertinent Australian rules football as national and most popular sport in Australia. Regards,--PIO (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

You can vote in mediation. Regards,--PIO (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Green Week

I thought that wikipedia was about the truth? Since when do we edit articles based on how the subject wants it to read? Should the OJ Simpson page omit the trial if he requested it? Should Coke be able to write their own bio? Kip participated in Green Week, was named the Jester, hence it should be recorded that way. I am following wikipedian guidelines, you are not. Disco (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kip threw a hissy at me last night when I told him about what was happening, so I've agreed to leave it blank... for now ;) Disco (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackadder: Back & Forth

I've just checked the DVD - they lose Balders' underpants in the Jurassic Period, and there is a pair of grubby Y-fronts on the table when Blackadder tips the artefacts out of the plastic bag at the end, which are definitely not Baldrick's - but there's still no proof that the underpants are Marion's. If you can find a reference (such as an interview with Richard Curtis, Ben Elton or Paul Weiland, or another definite piece of evidence) for them being hers, put it back in with the ref, but until then we're just assuming they're hers - which is original research and not allowed. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 10:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man

I just wanna agree with yall. Soccer mega fails. Captain Spleen (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mitch Robinson

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mitch Robinson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:ATHLETE as he has not played a first team match with a fully professional club

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mattinbgn\^talk 03:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chris Yarran

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Chris Yarran, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:ATHLETE as he has not played a first team match with a fully professional club

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mattinbgn\^talk 03:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Mitch Robinson

I have nominated Mitch Robinson, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitch Robinson. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --VS ^talk 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Caleb Tiller

I have nominated Caleb Tiller, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb Tiller. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --VS ^talk 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Rhys O'Keeffe

I have nominated Rhys O'Keeffe, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhys O'Keeffe. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --VS ^talk 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Chris Yarran

I have nominated Chris Yarran, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Yarran. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --VS ^talk 01:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Clint Benjamin

I have nominated Clint Benjamin, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clint Benjamin. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --VS ^talk 10:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Aspirex! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 12 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 5 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Rohan Kerr - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Kane Lucas - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Aaron Joseph - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Caleb Tiller - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Rhys O'Keeffe - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Mitch Robinson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Dennis Armfield - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Steven Browne - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Michael Jamison - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Samuel Jacobs - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

2More...
11. Shaun Hampson

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Joshua Donaldson

The article Joshua Donaldson has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ironholds (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Zach Tuohy

The article Zach Tuohy has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ironholds (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Simon White (Australian Rules Footballer)

The article Simon White (Australian Rules Footballer) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ironholds (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Levi Casboult

The article Levi Casboult has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ironholds (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jaryd Cachia

The article Jaryd Cachia has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Ironholds (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing of articles

As you probably have realised, the importance of sourcing biographies of living people, such as the articles you have recently created, is becoming more and more important. It would be a shame for you to put so much effort into creating articles only to have them deleted. Maybe you would like to have some help sourcing them before they are created; if so, drop me a note on my talkpage and I'm sure we can find a solution. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote your coach - your contributions are "An embarrassing effort". Haven't you learnt anything from all the AFDs and notifications above over the past 3 years? YOU MUST REFERENCE ALL ARTICLES. It's policy. Especially when they are borderline notable players like the rookie list guys. I've saved the Yarren article the other year, referenced Lucas, Tiller, Armfield, Browne, Jamison, Jacobs and maybe more earlier this year - and the other AFDs above generally survived on a "no consensus" (and they would not have survived if they were nominated today, as poorly or unreferenced BLPs will be deleted). So please supply reliable sources for your articles - and generally that means not local community papers or AFL/Carlton sources and definitely not forums/blogs etc. They have really tightened up on the requirements this time around, so I may not be able to save them all this time around.The-Pope (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

2000 AFL season#Notable events

Hi Aspirex, I noticed your edit under the 2000 AFL Season, notable events section stating that Round 5 had the most behinds scored in a single round in AFL history. After last weeks poor kicking, I too pondered about this record, but was unable to find any info on the web when I searched. Just to satisfy my curiosity, can you tell me where you found this fact? Cheers, Matt5AU (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, it's a violation of the "no original research" rule.Aspirex (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not too fussed about wiki-regulations. Was just trying to expand my pool of resources. So by original research, do you mean you worked it out yourself? Seems like a lot of work. Maybe if you could write a query to a database of all the game results (does one exist that is publicly accessible?). I figure Champion Data and the stats guys on the radio stations must have access to some sort of database. Anyway, good to know I wasn't the only one pondering about the record of behinds kicked in a round. Cheers, Matt5AU (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I copied all of the game results off stats.rleague.com, and put them into an excel format for easy manipulation. Aspirex (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like the sort of thing covered by the essay Wikipedia:These are not original research, though sourcing is of course always good. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the grammar of entropy

A comment, not a criticism:

In Entropy (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) you changed

... Spike, whom they know to have loitered watching the house in the past.

to

... Spike, who they know has loitered watching the house in the past.

with the annotation

grammar fix - relative pronoun governed by case of succeeding clause

Of course both versions are grammatical; in the first, the subject of the subordinate clause is they, not who [Spike]. Constructions like this are often tricky; in your version I'm tempted to put commas around they know, to make it easier for ESL readers to parse. —Tamfang (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

Please remember to notify the user in question whenever you request review of another editor's edits, particularly at an administrator noticeboard like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 12:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do in future. Thanks. Aspirex (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rhys O'Keeffe

The article Rhys O'Keeffe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:ATHLETE, having never played a first team match in the AFL. He has now been cut from the Carlton squad so it is unlikely he ever will.

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mattinbgn (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rhys O'Keeffe for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Rhys O'Keeffe, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhys O'Keeffe until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mattinbgn (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Caleb Tiller for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Caleb Tiller, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb Tiller until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mattinbgn (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Joshua Donaldson for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Joshua Donaldson, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Donaldson until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jenks24 (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Levi Casboult

The article Levi Casboult has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

rookie listed player with no senior games

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Aspirex. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 06:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Nomination of Levi Casboult for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Levi Casboult, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levi Casboult until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1967 Tasmanian State Premiership Final

Mate, terrific job with the page! Just a couple of things for your footnotes, specifically 1 and 2 if you're interested.
Cooee actually folded their club up at the end of 1986 and started a brand new one called Burnie Hawks, it got them into the TFL and eliminated their $108k debt at the same time. Was a clever move but sad at the same time as it ended 92 years of Cooee history, the Burnie Hawks were good for their first few years but lost their way badly by around 1990 and lost a lot of the support of the old Cooee following when they started taking down a lot of the old Cooee memorabilia at West Park. By 1992 they were in discussions with Burnie Tigers and merged in late 1993.
North Hobart actually started the 1969 season as the Robins, but officially became the Demons on 1 May 1969, about five rounds into the season! I wonder how many clubs can say they've had two different emblems in the same season!!
Keep up the great work!Forfuxake (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great article...

But the name is awful! Reserves affiliations of Australian Football League clubs. But as I can't think of anything better, I'll just say well done and just try to keep improving it, especially the WAFL section. I might end up spliting up the SANFL/WAFL sections, but it's a fantastic start. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought hard about the title and bagsed a few more via redirects, but (as you've clearly found out) it was very difficult to come up with a title that succinctly covers all aspects of the affiliations and their differing interrelationships with all of the various state leagues. I feel like the title I came up with is accurate, but it's definitely clumsy. Best bet is probably to put a topic on the article's talk page and look for suggestions from others.

If you could get some better citations into the SANFL/WAFL section, that would definitely be appreciated. I cobbled a lot of the information together from unreliable forum-type sources, and struggled to find much official information on the web that I could cite. I also struggled to justify splitting up the SANFL and WAFL into different sections when the two follow basically the same rules, but I recognise that the downside of that is the abstract-sounding language of "state of origin", the clubs' "respective state league" and so on that makes the section difficult to read; now that you've added the short-lived single-club alignments, this does provide the justification I lacked to split them up. Aspirex (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Marc Lock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Southport Football Club

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In 2011 AFL Draft, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page GAA (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) 12:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Lightning football, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Codified (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) 10:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Hughes

You removed ".. who is widely considered to be one of the most promising prospects for the Australia cricket team" from the Phillip Hughes article with an edit summary of "POV statement". But, I should mention that this was there in the article for nearly 3 years (from early 2009 to 2011) as can be verified from the history. In fact, the person to remove this first was me! Here's the diff: [1].

I later regreted removing it and added it back in. But then other people removed it. I think it should be there because Phil Hughes has one of the best first class records in the country of a young batsmen. Besides, it's not POV as there're three references for it (Alan Border, Bill Lawry, Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.12.253 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Melbourne Meetup

Hi there. Just inviting youmto the Melbourne meetup this Sunday at 11am, to celebrate our 11th anniversary. Details on that page. Hope to see you there! SteveBot (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC) (on behalf of Steven Zhang)[reply]

Well done!

Congratulations on your clean-up of AFL team rivalries. Much of that content has been annoying me for a long time, but fixing looked a bit overwhelming. Glad you found the time and energy. HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February Melbourne Meetup

Hi All. Just letting you know that we have another meetup planned for Melbourne, on Sunday, 26th February at 11am. More details can be found at the meetup page. Pizza will be provided. Look forward to seeing all of you there :-) SteveBot (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Northern guernsey.PNG

Thank you for uploading File:Northern guernsey.PNG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it then. I have no interest in getting involved in or learning about image copyright issues at Wikipedia. Aspirex (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne meetup

Hey all, just a reminder that there's a meetup tomorrow at 11am in North Melbourne. There are more details at the meetup page. Hope to see you tomorrow! SteveBot (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bendigo Whatevers

Do you think we should just stick it back at Bendigo Football Club rather than the nickname, or is that incorrect in some way? The-Pope (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That suits me. I haven't seen anything to suggest that would be wrong. Aspirex (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MCG's 2500th match

I'm OK with you re-adding that. I thought someone might. But can you please go to the article's Talk page. For me, the citation doesn't work. And the VFA was the senior competition until 1896. It's a serious question of mine. HiLo48 (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry. Saw the change to the article before I saw the talk item. We probably got caught in the overlap. Aspirex (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McInnes

I've replied to your message on my talk page, and moved the page from your userspace to mainspace at Andrew McInnes. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GWS achievements

I'm normally pretty brutal myself on trivia in the AFL season articles, but I really thought the GWS stuff today was worth a mention, especially in the light of coach Sheedy's achievement today too, which is how the person who originally added it framed it. First win in particular at a brand new home ground (the club's first real home ground) is notable. It will be recorded forever at the club and the ground. Compared with other clubs, 107 points isn't great, but it is GWS's best so far. I don't support the club (Go Cats!), so I'm not pushing a POV here. Just thought you were a bit more brutal than I would ever be. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale is as follows:

Only the first win is inherently notable. Second, third, and everything thereafter just takes up space, and isn't notable in its own right. (That having been said, the fact that they ended a ten-match losing streak does meet the notability guidelines, so I'll set about including that).
It is only their fifth game at Škoda, so they've only lost four in a row there, so breaking that doesn't really qualify as notable. (Compare with Gold Coast losing 17 in a row and counting at their home ground at Metricon; when they finally win their first game there, it's definitely going to be notable.)
You've pretty much stated my rationale for the highest score yourself. 107 is GWS's best so far, but it isn't great compared with other clubs: as such, 2012 Greater Western Sydney Football Club season is the place to make note of it, not 2012 AFL season. Back when I drafted the notability guidelines, I specifically included a comment that a highest score is not considered notable unless it is above 150 for this exact reason. Aspirex (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that this isn't just any club. It's a brand new club for which these achievements mean a lot. I wouldn't argue for the inclusion of such statistics for any of the established clubs. HiLo48 (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true today. But 20 years from now, when the club is established and has a reasonable amount of playing history, this score and the fact that it was ever a record will not be notable. Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary Aspirex (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's true, though not an absolute reason to leave it out. But the first win at the real home ground can never happen again, or be "exceeded". HiLo48 (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Characters

I completely agree, there were several characters on this page that did not need to be listed (i.e. unknown guest). However I believe Mr. Ingram was important because of the context it has from the creator's perspective and what they hoped to accomplish. The character was very purposefully done and was intended to humiliate a real life person. Therefore it is a notable character that should stay in. Nonetheless I completely agree with everything else you've done.DaltonCastle (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that this information is more suited to being in The Psychiatrist, rather than in the list of characters page, because he's not particularly important as a character, as such; but, I'm not particularly fussed either way. However, this story about the real Ingrams needs to be removed until a citation is provided – exactly as you have said, it humiliates a real person, so simply tagging with "citation needed" is not sufficient.Aspirex (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 AFL Grand Final

I note that you've had a go at improving the Match summary part of the 2012 AFL Grand Final. That's great, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on something I've posted on the article's Talk page. (Note that I wrote it BEFORE your improvements.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup invitation: Melbourne 26

Melbourne Meetup

Next: 6 January 2013 at La Trobe City Campus
Previous: 25 November 2012

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup next Sunday (6 January). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 26. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 04:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Victoria)

Cricket

Your reason was clearly invalid. Please stop reverting or you will face severe consequences. Qantasplanes (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Richmond Football Club may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding The Edits...

That was not biased. I am a fan of North Melbourne & I did list their major wins. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For the policies I understand why you reverted. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 AFL season may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

that the ground will not host a Round 1 match for the first time since [[2006 AFL season|2006]] (when its availability was limited by the [[2006 Commonwealth Games|Commonwealth Games]]; and, the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 27 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Punt Road Oval page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 21 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the 1953 VFL season page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1879 VFA season may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

the [[South Australian National Football League|South Australian Football Association]]) toured Victoria, and played two [[Interstate matches in Australian rules football|intercolonial

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

G'Day Aspirex - excellent job on the VFA Seasons pages. It's great to see the Association being covered in such detail.

Can you contact me directly via my site - www.hardballget.net - to talk about some additional VFA research.

Thanks, and keep up the good work Easty01 (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 16 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the 1976 VFL season page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James Magner may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[{Category:Port Melbourne Football Club players]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

notability

Hi,

how is it that an AFL club becoming the first to reach 30,000 goals in club history is not notable, while a player becoming the 29th player to kick 600 career goals is notable?

--SuperJew (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

600 goals is a relevant measure of a player's ability and career as a forward in a contemporary setting; it is a milestone players seek to achieve and is widely considered to be of stand-alone importance to the league. 30,000 goals over a period of 118 years is not: it merely states that Collingwood has scored more goals than anyone else, but it has no stand-alone importance, scant relevance to the AFL as a whole or to this season in particular. It is a statistic much better placed in 2014 Collingwood Football Club season than in 2014 AFL season. Aspirex (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Make It Clear.

I was not doing it live. I was editing at the quarters so that I would have an easier job at doing the score formatting. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VFA

Cheers for that, I've checked 2nd Division scores up to end of '86 so still need last two seasons of D2 plus a handful of other results post '88. I don't want to post my email address here in an open forum, can you contact me via my site for details of info I'm still chasing (the email link is top right of the home page). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easty01 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G'Day Aspirex, haven't heard from you yet, can you get back to me when you get a chance. Cheers. Easty01 (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Peter Neville really notable enough?

I admit I didn't even know that the VFA had 2 divisions, but is someone who mainly played in division 2 really notable? I was reading it hoping for some higher honours, but to me he's a good amateur player, club stalwart etc, with the equivalent of local coverage or routine match report coverage only. I don't think he really meets the notability requirements. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 7 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Ciarán Sheehan page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VFA article!

Wow. Thanks for your work on the 87 VFA article. I was planning to put something respectable up over the days/weeks but you have clearly done a remarkable job. Thanks for your dedication! Jono52795 (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 Carlton Football Club season may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[Mitch Robinson]] and [{Jeff Garlett]] were involved in a brawl outside a night venue on Lonsdale Street at 5am on the morning of Sunday

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jim 'Frosty' Miller Medal may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s and 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brendan Fevola may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

}</ref> As of the end of 2014, Fevola has kicked 298 goals in three seasons with Yarrawonga.<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=The Border Mail|publication-place=Albury, NSW|url=https://www.bordermail.com.au/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 1 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Ross Lyon page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

commas

G'day Aspirex, I don't see them as being necessary, but WP:NCPDAB is very clear that a comma should be used. Yes, the discussion that came to that conclusion is weak but Jenks24 tried unsuccessfully to have it removed from the guideline in August. And no, I'm not going to go backwards through all of our articles and move them, but going forward, any new article with the need to include a born qualifier should have a comma, IMO. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

I like the cut of your jib. Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global account

Hi Aspirex! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VFL teams changes

Hi, I'm interested as to why you elected to effectively purge the AFL clubs' VFL team articles. Forgive me if I missed it, but was there a discussion about making such a change or did you elect to do it on your own initiative? Not that I necessarily disagree with the move just that it seems quite a bit of information from each of the club articles would be lost if the change went ahead. Jono52795 (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion can be found at the project talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_rules_football. I recommend you add that to your watchlist, since changes which affect more than one Australian rules football article often get discussed there. Aspirex (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old partial ref

G'day, mid last year you added a partial ref to the Frank Seymour article. It's now popped up on the list of citations without titles. Without even a date I can't improve the ref. Any chance you know more info and could complete the reference to include a date and title? Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Aspirex (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 28 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the 2015 Carlton Football Club season page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GWS Biggest Win

Hey, I've had a look at your section in the 2011 AFL season talk page about notability and I agree with most of it, however, I believe that the point made about GWS' round 7 biggest win and biggest score, which you deleted, should still be recognised as your notability list was written pretty much before the expansion clubs played (April 2011 - so about a month into GC playing, and all other clubs had exceeded those requirements anyway). I understand that there needs to be a line drawn so there's no grey areas in the argument for most cases of notability, but these efforts made by GWS today are still notable, and they may not be superseded for a while. It wouldn't be notable, for example, if their biggest win was 40 points and biggest score was 100 points, so I understand why you've deleted it in the past. However, 78 points is 2 points short and 135 points is 15 points short of meeting your definition of notability, so there isn't much of a difference, and your notability prerequisites should perhaps be slightly lower due to the timing of when the list was written. In their short history, I strongly believe it does meet notability and should be recognised.Flickerd (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can waver on the issue of the greatest winning margin, but only because GWS' history is short; but the comment will be removed the first time GWS wins a game by more than 80 points (i.e. it's only notable while it's the highest ever, and won't be notable as a progression-of-record in the future). But on the grand scheme of football history, 135 is not a particularly high score, and is a full 10% short of the target, so I disagree on that matter. Aspirex (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rude

Wow. Do you really need to be so rude about that comment on the 2015 AFL season page, we're all trying to work collaboratively, it was in an AFL article and something that the club hadn't achieved for over 60 years, I thought it was notable when I first read it, I wouldn't just do a comment that was pointless. You can just simply say you don't think it's notable (and you do realise everyone has a different opinion of what is notable, so perhaps you should be a bit more understanding of that and have a discussion rather than just deleting most people's contributions), you don't need to be so rude about it. Flickerd (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I did regret it shortly after I'd hit the 'save' button. Aspirex (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate matches in Australian rules football

The reference I provided doesn't say the games were eagerly anticipated. The reference is with the VFL still a few years away from morphing into a national competition is today Interstate clashes between Victoria, South Australia & Western Australia were amongst the most anticipated in the first half of the electrifying eighties. He was clearly talking about Victoria, seeing as the article is about him going from Braybook Victoria, to the Footscray Football Club Victoria, to Burnie, and then back to Victoria. And seeing as Football is almost a religion in Victoria, that implies interstate Football was hugely popular in Victoria. But even if he wasn't talking about Victoria, and he was talking about the whole of Australia, that includes Victoria. So either way that statement is correct.

And the reference is for the statement But Interstate Football was still hugely popular in Victoria, not anything else.

And with due respect you just don't know the topic. The game between Victoria & South Australia in 1963 at the MCG got 59k, you can find that information on the AustralianFootball.com Web Site. The game between Victoria & South Australia at the MCG in 1971 got 66k, Graham Cornes talks about it in his Open Mike interview, which you can watch on Youtube. The game between Victoria & South Australia at the MCG in 1995 got 64k. The game between Victoria & Western Australia in 1978 in Victoria got 45k, you can read about that On-Line and on this site. The 2 games Victoria held in the 1975 Carnival both got 40k, you can read that on the Net. The game between Victoria & South Australia in 1989 got 91k, you can read that on this site and on the Net. And there are more games you can read about On-Line where Victoria got big and good crowds.

Yes there weren't big crowds at the 1958 Melbourne Carnival. But there also weren't big crowds at the Adelaide 1980 & 1988 Carnivals, and the Perth 1979 Carnival. Interstate Football has had patches of low support though out history. But overall, though out history all over Australia in the Football states Interstate Football has been hugely popular.

So please stop removing that reference, thanks.2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well for 1 I'm not new to Wikipedia. Statistics do not back up that Interstate Football was much more popular in the rest of Australia than in Victoria, and wasn't. I have provided more than several examples of Victoria getting big crowds for Interstate matches. The point you bring up about comparing Interstate crowd numbers to regular season crowd numbers is irrelevant. The point I'm making is that Interstate Football was popular in Victoria, not how popular it was in comparable to the regular season, or how popular it was in Victoria comparable to other states & their regular season, those points are irrelevant. The big crowds I've pointed to prove that Interstate Football was hugely popular in Victoria.

Also the last 2 Carnivals South Australia held, and the last Carnival Western Australia held got crowds no where near the crowds Victoria got in the 1975 Carnival. But like I said there have been few low points of popularity (All Over) Australia, including South Australia & Western Australia in Interstate Football. But it gives some perspective on Victoria's popularity of Interstate Football.

And the statement were fighting over doesn't say Interstate Football was always popular in Victoria. It say's But Interstate Football was still hugely popular in Victoria, meaning at times, the majority of the time.

The reference is very clear and valid, so I will be keeping it on there. But I do think we could do what your suggesting by saying in the opening sentence that (Interstate matches mostly though out history were very significant events on the annual Football calendar). Meaning that there were low points of popularity (All Over) Australia, but for most of history they were very significant events. 2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work like that, you don't know if a city had more people it would get bigger crowds, so there not equivalents. Population to crowds numbers are irrelevant, the fact is Victoria has gotten many big crowds in Interstate Football over the years. that means a lot of people have liked it. And you're totally ignoring the fact that people watch the games on T.V, which a lot of people did. And Victoria did get much bigger crowds in the 1975 Carnival, than SA & WA got in the 1979, 1980, & 1988 Carnivals. And a 60k crowd is a big crowd, and is very remarkable. Also seeing as the AFL average attendance is 32k.

And you should read things before you make a comment. I didn't say that, I said (the statement were fighting over doesn't say that). The reference for the statement I made is only for But Interstate Football was still hugely popular in Victoria, not anything else.

The other paragraph you're talking about is correct, I don't have a reference for it at the moment, but when I've got time I'll add one.

And the problem I have with your proposal is that regular season Football is hugely popular in Victoria, it's almost a Religion, and Victoria has always gotten huge crowds for it. And just saying Interstate Football crowds in Victoria drew similar crowds similar in size to larger Home & Away matches, doesn't describe how hugely popular Interstate Football was in Victoria.

And you've totally ignored my proposal about how Interstate Football has had few low periods of popularity all over Australia. You're just playing semantic games, bring up things that aren't relevant, and ignoring the fact that the rest of Australia has had few low periods of popularity. All the statements I have made are correct, and the reference I have provided is very clear and valid, so I will be keeping it up there. I will also add the new sentence I have proposed, to indicate that all over Australia there have been few low periods of popularity, but overall Interstate Football has been very significant. 2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're just being ridiculous, I never said a city size couldn't influence a crowds attendance, I said it wasn't a guarantee. The opening sentence I have wrote fixes you're problem that Interstate Football wasn't always popular in Victoria, so I don't know what your problem is. But what you want to do is fine with me.2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about another compromise. We get rid of the line in question, and add Victoria's popularity in the concept was inconsistent. There were times it was very popular, but though out it's history in the State there were periods of low popularity. The periods of popularity usually coincided with close contests or losses with other states, and after periods of Interstate games not being played in the State.SportsEditor518 (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Kernhan & Craig Bradley

You just described what I did. I agree with the point that the hyphen/dash implies a single continuous period of time, that's what I did. For period of Best & Fairest wins, for example if C Bradley won the B&F from 83-87, that means he won the award from the continuous period from 83 to 87. I think it's clear who made a imprecision thought. Not using the Hyphen/Dash, especially with a lot of numbers, is silly, and wastes a lot of unnecessary space. So I will be changing it back. 2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. For 1 I didn't do that, and 2 I agree with that way of describing Craig Bradley's example All-Australian's, that's what I did. And for the Simpson Medal if it's in for example the Representative category then people will know it's for a SoO Game. And Vice Versa if it's in the Club category people will know it's for a Grand Final. Using the Hyphen/Dash, and not listing everyone of the years will not confuse people. I haven't used the Hyphen/Dash for a year when someone hasn't won a award. Using the Hyphen/Dash people will know every year they won the award, it will make no difference. And opposite is true we are short of space on Wikipedia in the (Info Box). Because the longer lines are the bigger the Box get's, and after a while it get's that big it looks silly.2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but those were not listed in a (Info Box). The only problem I have with it is when there is a lot of years the box is going to get too big and look silly. In most sport Info Boxes on Wikipedia they use the Hyphen/Dash when there is more than one year. I think we should use the Hyphen/Dash for all years listed, because the Info Box is what we're working with. and if there is too many numbers the box will get too big and will look silly.2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be listed next to the award, that's what's done on most sport pages on Wikipedia, it's more efficient and professional, and I think we should follow suit.2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen plenty of sports pages, and American Big 4 sport pages where there've done what I've suggested. For example Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Andrew Gaze. I don't think we should change the Australian Football Info Box. Having Line Breaks for year numbers doesn't look as professional. I think we should follow suit of most Wikipedia sport pages. Like I said it's more efficient and professional. 2001:8003:4610:BF01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is Editor 2001:8003 ect. Just letting you know, please respond to this account for any new messages. I'm sorry, I don't agree with that. It won't look as professional if you have Line Breaks. And my proposal is what most Wikipedia sport pages do. So for those reasons I will be supporting the status quo. SportsEditor518 (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move

I would like to know why you removed the comma from "Andrew Krakouer (footballer born 1971)". Is it because the article is related to Australian rules football? In association football articles we add a comma. SLBedit (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historically we haven't used commas in Australian football articles, so I changed it for consistency. However, I was informed shortly after moving it (see above User_talk:Aspirex#commas) that there's an MoS agreement somewhere saying commas should be used, and I've used the commas since. Aspirex (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "2015 in ball sports" section,,,

Hello to you, Aspirex. I agree mostly about giving each ball sport their own Wikipedia entry, instead of having another cumbersome and too-big Wikipedia entry. I have realized that the "ball sports" article could end up with the same situation as the "2015 in sports" entry. Maybe, the 2015 in athletics (track and field) entry one could be a model template for most of the other sports. What do you think? Rockies77 (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think there are some sub-categorisations of sports which go well together (e.g. the ice sports article you mentioned on your own talk page works well, and I think all motor sports could go together, all Gaelic sports, etc.), and I think a lot of sports will just be best served having their own page. Aspirex (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		For patiently trying to resolve a dispute. valereee (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate matches in Australian rules football

I have not failed on two occasions on the issue, and there was no conclusions at the dispute resolutions, those are flat out lies. If you can prove the content or the references aren't accurate I am happy to discuss the issue with you further, but at the moment the references and content are accurate, so I will putting it back. If you revert it again I will report you for edit warring and removing sourced content.2001:8003:4406:9F01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SportsEditor518 2001:8003:4406:9F01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F I have to agree with Aspirex that you did indeed fail to return to the discussion for a very long period on two occasions. The first time, we closed the discussion, believing your absence from both the discussion and from continuing to edit the article signalled that you had decided not to dispute the issue further. We reopened discussion when you started editing again. You returned briefly to the discussion and promised to respond the following day, and you never did. We finally closed the discussion as failed. The average dispute resolution process takes 14 days, and we gave you nearly five weeks of our attention. I have to also agree with Aspirex that what started as a content dispute has become, unfortunately, a behavior issue. valereee (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

We never got a resolution on this, and it got archived, so I pulled it back out and put it under a new heading asking for admin attention. I'll try to keep it open, but I'm leaving town Aug1-Aug9 and will be camping, so extremely limited access. valereee (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -- the article has been semi-protected. valereee (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; I saw it disappear and saw no dissenting opinion so I figured it had been resolved. Aspirex (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need, it's all good! There was no dissension, there was just no resolution either, and it needed admin attention to actually implement. It'll be archived now, but it can be opened again if necessary. valereee (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Melbourne Cricket Ground may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

(AFL) clubs later joined Melbourne in using the MCG as their home ground for matches: {AFL Ric}} (1965), {{AFL NM}} (1985), {{AFL Ess}} (1992), {{AFL Col}} (started moving in 1994, became full-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 5 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Andrew Carrazzo page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 19 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the 2016 Carlton Football Club season page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 25 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Florida State–Georgia Tech football rivalry page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 2 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Australian National Football Council page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2015 (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) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 22 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Laurie Nash page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major cricket - possible merge

Hi. Given the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major cricket (2nd nomination) as non-consensus I'd like to consider a possible merge of the Major cricket article to History of cricket - see the discussion I've started at Talk:Major cricket. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 4 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the 2015 AFL draft page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dibs

I came across this missing article because there are several other things called "dibs" (I was interested in the fruit syrup). I have made it into a disambiguation article.

I agree with you that there should be an article on the practice of "calling dibs", "calling bagsy", etc. (Calling dibs might be a suitable title.) But we first need to find some more substantive encyclopedic content (not just a list of translations). --Macrakis (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 4 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the List of Australian Football League grounds page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 20 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Essendon Football Club supplements controversy page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 10 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Andrew Carrazzo page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 25 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Ed Curnow page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi how do i create a new artilcle such as the one I was editing on the AFL finals system. I want to show the statistics of the finals results as this is not available anywhere. Ashtonsharma (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Aspirex. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH?Q_DL=2oczE7SODTUnF5j_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH_MLRP_8iBe17Lx6xNmWTr&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Aspirex. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution for Talk:2018 AFL season

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Flickerd (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Aspirex. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Aspirex. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFL scorecard templates

Hello Aspirex, I've put a few old AFL scorecard templates that are redundant to Template:AFLGameDetailed up for deletion, one of which you created. From the looks of this discussion, they were intended to be replaced by AFLGameDetailed in 2009, but ended up going unnoticed. Just a heads-up. – Teratix ₵ 12:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 AFL Season - Essendon vs Melbourne

Hi @Aspirex:

In order to prevent further edit-warring, which is in general a bad thing, I've decided to move this discussion to your talk page.

I don't understand your reasoning for the repeated removal of the mention of the bye in Round 3 of that page. From your most recent edit - you made mention of having to read through the text regarding Adelaide - which of course, doesn't change regardless of which form the page is in. Furthermore, the version I last made (which is the revert you made most recently) is directly sourced from the AFL's website, with a direct quote of the two teams having 'already served their "bye"' from the initial decision to include byes for all teams (Approximately around Rounds 7-8, in terms of time).

Despite the fact that under normal circumstances a bye would be scheduled in a regular means, this does not means the rescheduled or cancelled game would not, or should not be considered as such. Likewise, no matter the circumstances which surround an event, we are required to report on issues accurately and list the outcomes of the events - just because an event's cause is unique, does not mean we should approach or list the event differently.

In summary, and with all due respect, it is my opinion that you have allowed your own personal biases in your perception of the match (That is, that a bye should have been scheduled and therefore the match should not be considered a bye & that the match should be treated differently due to circumstances) to influence your actions in regards to the match, despite the presence of a source supporting the wording used in a more appropriate manner. I believe we should re-instate the version which lists the game as a Bye, as this is how the match has been considered in a global sense, as supported by the listed source.

Thanks, Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspirex:, I would appreciate if we could discuss this before any further changes are made - a compromise only works if both people agree to it. If we could discuss this issue, we could come to a resolution without having to edit back and forth with each other. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to give me time to respond this time? Honestly, I think we should just put it to the other editors of the page, as I don't see a compromise happening if my last suggestion wasn't to your liking. Aspirex (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspirex:Considering you never responded to this message prior to now, I think you've had ample time to propose a compromise before now. But regardless, here is my justification for the language changes, and then the dual listing. The language use changes were just general cleanup - the word retroactive is more accurate than retrospective, as the former applies to the past events (The Postponed Match itself) and the future, whereas the latter only applies to future events. I replaced suspended with postponed, as that is the terminology the sources use. I changed scheduled to re-scheduled for this reason as well - the match was ultimately re-fixtured for a later date, so it's generally a better fit.

In regard to the dual listing - the terminology I used in my edit summary was ambiguous, so I'll clarify - 'as it occurred' was meant in the sense, where we should reflect that the match was ultimately considered a bye, and only use that listing. It is redundant to have both the postponed listing alongside the bye, alongside a further descriptor in the notes. Consider the bye as its own match - we have not treated the other occurrences of rescheduling (i.e Richmond vs West Coast) in this manner, so why would this match deserve special treatment? Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We have many styled examples of short-notice postponements/cancellations being presented as unfinished games. As there is no single answer which fulfils all policies (this is a style dispute rather than something fitting obviously into a WP policy), nor it would appear is there a single solution satisfying both of us, I again suggest that we put it on the article talk page and put it to a simple vote of other page editors. (And giving two days then declaring the argument over is hardly a decisive length of time in a content discussion). Aspirex (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really? I can count only the one example - being the Adelaide-Geelong match from 2015, which was never re-scheduled. The two postponements I've found are also irrelevant, as they were done during a time period without byes and are simply considered part of their own round. This entire debate is occurring because this situation is unprecedented within the AFL, as far as I'm aware. We have never had a postponed match be replayed as part of another round, nor had a bye take the place of the original match. As such, there are no styled examples of either side, in the context of the current situation. As far as I can tell, however, the sources indicate that the bye serves as a replacement for the match - hence my belief it should not be listed. That's also why I brought up the other occurrences of rescheduling, as in my opinion, these are identical situations to this, simply substituting an actual match for the bye. (I'd also like to reiterate you did not respond within this month period, before editing the page again and only responding once I attempted contact again. The argument was only over due to your own reluctance to respond.) Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With this diff, you clearly signalled that you believed - after less than a mere two days of the conversation being open - that I was acting in bad faith. I don't deal with people who do that. Now let's resolve how this request for comment will be worded. Aspirex (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? If that's how you interpreted it, that wasn't the intent. I was simply trying to gain your attention with respect to this (hence the reference to timely response & believing you had not seen the message). It wasn't an accusation of bad faith in the slightest, at least it wasn't meant to be. Sorry if it came across that way at all Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed wording of request: Seeking other editors' input on a style dispute in Round 3 regarding how to present Essendon and Melbourne in the schedule. With an AFLGameBye template showing the two teams; or an AFLGame template for the original schedule showing no result and a cancelled/postponed tag; or both. The game notes will explain the situation whichever way it ends up. Disputing editors have not reached a consensus or compromise, and are happy to take other editor consensus or majority vote.

That seems a reasonable wording - though I'd remove the references to the templates themselves to make it a touch more understandable for an average user who may be unfamiliar with the templates. I.e - Seeking other editor's input on a style dispute in Round 3 regarding the presentation of the Essendon-Melbourne match. The proposed options are as follows:

A bye, under the pretense that the match was assigned as for the two club's retroactively.
A listed match cited as postponed or cancelled, under the pretense that the change was sudden and unplanned and therefore should not be listed as a 'bye'.
Both of the above options

The game notes will provide detail on the situation whichever way it ends up. Disputing editors have not reached a consensus or compromise, and are happy to take other editor consensus or majority vote.

Depending on whether results are actually gathered though, it may be in best interest to also post it on the Wikiproject page at a later date. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather just give the options, rather than try to justify each. We could just direct everyone to the current Round 3 edit, since it has both options in it already. Aspirex (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspirex: Apologies for the late reply, been having computer troubles over the previous few days. The reason I suggested justifications is simply so users have the additional context that has been discussed, in a compressed format. Boiling down our reasoning essentially comes to these justifications (as far as I can tell), so it's explaining this context in that simplest form to help make a informed decision, as opposed to a blind one. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I the two reasonings are self evident from the gamenote. Aspirex (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they were (which they aren't, in my opinion), it's better to provide the information readily. You're still relying on an individual to chase up the information themselves, which there is no guarantee of. By supplying the information, you're guaranteeing they'll have it - preparing for the worst case scenario as it were. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But again, that doesn't state 'why' the dispute has occurred, simply the options themselves. I added the reasoning to my proposal because it provides the uninformed user with context regarding the situation which they would likely be devoid of otherwise. Context is necessary to make a choice with true merit. Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Suggest instead then to state: Seeking other editors' input on a style dispute in Round 3 regarding how to present Essendon and Melbourne in the schedule. Options are:

A bye (AFLGameBye template), on the basis that Round 3 was ultimately considered to have been the clubs' bye for the year.
A listed match cited as postponed (AFLGame template), on the basis that the rescheduling was at short notice and the game's original schedule is of sufficient importance to include.
Both of the above options

The game notes will explain the situation whichever way it ends up, so no loss of content; this is just to determine the primary presentation of the information. The disputing editors have not reached a consensus or compromise, and are happy to take other editor consensus or majority vote. Aspirex (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this should work, yes. Glad we could come to compromise on at least this.Empoleonmaster23 (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 AFL Finals

Why is it that the 2021 Finals template cannot be on the 2021 season page, but in years past, the templates are in fact on the season page? Even the 2020 season page has the template. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Templates For Discussion - AFL Player Significant Statistics Templates

A new discussion has begun regarding the AFL Player Significant Statistics Templates. Please add your thoughts there. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Grand final article ... always in Melbourne

Not sure why you reverted my edit. The AFL Grand Final article was really unclear as to why it was held in Brisbane and Perth and not Melbourne. The current article makes it appear as though it is always held in Melbourne. Hence why its important to explain to readers that it is contracted to the MCG until 2058, but is hosted elsewhere when the MCG is unavailable. While it clarifies that the MCG isn't always the venue (article says "all but 11 occasions" that is not insignificant and there is no reasoning as to why). People interstate quite often ask why they can't host the Grand Final in their state given that its supposed to be a "national" competition - well that is why! --Rulesfan (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree at all - there's an entire section devoted to the venue, the non-MCG occasions with reasons why, with links to anothet article AFL Grand Final location debate which goes into even more detail on the wider question of venue. My reason for reverting was 1) when 90% of Grand Finals have been at the MCG, then an article about that game's full history can only reasonably lead with an image of the MCG; and because I thought the details which you added to the lead were not sufficiently important to be placed there when considering the full history of the event. It is always best to keep trivia, once off occurrences, etc. out of the lead. Aspirex (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What were you thinking?

Surely you know that newly drafted players aren't notable until they make their debut, except in a very few exceptional circumstances? And leaving in the refs from the other Jack Carroll was really poor. Bit too much Christmas cheer? The-Pope (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of VFA/VFL wooden spoons

The article List of VFA/VFL wooden spoons has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of any notability for this.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Fram (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of VFA/VFL wooden spoons for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of VFA/VFL wooden spoons 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/List of VFA/VFL wooden spoons until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Fram (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australian National Football Council

I'm curious to know why you remove any references to the Australian National Footbal Council (ANFC) in the Interstate matches in Australian rules football article. I think its pretty important to note that is who organised these matches since there is otherwise no mention in the article other than "Australian National Football Carnival" (named for the Council). I think it is also important to note that AFL dissolved this organisation along with the teams and tournaments and why since that is the primary reason these matches are no longer contested.--Rulesfan (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first point about the council's involvement was a mistake on my part; apologies, I have returned this to the article.

The second point about the AFL Commission's part – this is a simple matter of WP:PROVEIT. I disagree with what you've been adding, and you've not backed up any of those statements with references. Here (and in the Allies article), you've added unreferenced text stating there was an intentional plan to phase out interstate football, commencing in 1994 with the Allies' establishment. This is outright contradicted by the references which are included in the Allies page, which state that the changes made in 1995 by the AFL Commission were an attempt to reinvigorate the concept, not to phase it out. If you're going to say the AFL Commission planned a phase-out, then find a proper reference that says exactly that – and that stands up to critique. (I'm always skeptical of modern commentary on interstate football because I've seen enough historical and modern coverage to know that interstate football is thesedays viewed through rose-coloured glasses). Now, if you want to acknowledge that it was under the AFL Commission's watch that interstate football ended, that's fine and indisputable (although probably not appropriate for the lead); but once this decision is attributed to reasons or plans, references are required.

Honest feedback here: I'm quite surprised by the edits you've been making to the Interstate and Allies pages. You do a lot of good and well-referenced work for the project; but on these two pages, and the Allies in particular, you're adding unreferenced POV lines with an unencyclopedic tone ("The team really lacks the identity and symbolism that other representative sides have"; under failed rebranding of the "Dream Team"; the ), highly dubious statistical syntheses (drawing your own conclusion about the Allies popularity based on a single home crowd figure, stating "They have also not been successful on the field" despite a historical 2–2 record), and even using scare quotes on the statement (Their record "home" crowd was...). It breaks every pillar of Wikipedia and it's really out of character. Aspirex (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Allies

You've reverted edits about their largest crowd quote: "Garbage. The Allies had one home game ever, and the 13k crowd exceeded any previous Qld SOO crowd see here Interstate matches in Australian rules football# Australian Rules State of Origin Matches (1977–1999)"

You are totally incorrect and your own source disagrees with you! Queensland drew 16,000 in one of its few games at the Gabba against Victoria in 1980. I was there. Capacity prior to the Allies match was reduced due to the presence of the greyhound track. AFL apologists might disagree, but the Allies have NEVER been supported by Queenslanders and NEVER will be. --Rulesfan (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that I missed the 1980 crowd. I'll change my statement to "Garbage. The Allies had one home game ever, and the 13k crowd exceeded the average previous Qld SOO crowd see here Interstate matches in Australian rules football# Australian Rules State of Origin Matches (1977–1999)". It doesn't change the fact that this edit is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. Aspirex (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jack Carroll (footballer, born 2002) has been accepted

Jack Carroll (footballer, born 2002), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

The-Pope (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question How is the fremantle comment i put on 2022 afl wiki not notable i hae seen the same comment for multiple teams in previous seasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipstatic Energy (talk • contribs) 11:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:8TeamBracket-AFL-with-replay

Template:8TeamBracket-AFL-with-replay has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 18:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:8TeamBracket-AFL-with-replay

Template:8TeamBracket-AFL-with-replay has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 19:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Edit

See you reverted my edit on the 2022 Grand Final page. You didn't think it's interesting that they haven't played each other in so long? Anyhow, here's to a great match! MaskedSinger (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princes Park

You've reverted an edit stating that "Permissive occupancy of Princes Park was granted to CFC and CCC simultaneously in 1895; although the football club began playing there before the cricket club, it was nevertheless built for both clubs and managed by a joint committee from it earliest days".

Nowhere can I find this mentioned in the Princes Park article.

Numerous sources back up that the Carlton Football Club built and owns the ground on its current site from 1886. Which was disputed by the cricket club which had its own ground elsewhere in the park. They were not as you say managed by a joint committee. Please feel free to dispute this in the article itself rather than to put your facts in an edit note. Thanks. Rulesfan (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VFA/VFL - competition cf. operating organizations

Hi, You undid changes I made to the article on the VFL. I was trying to distinguish the competition from the two organizations that have run it. The article was very confused as to the distinction. It is one competition operated by two successive bodies, the VFA and then AFL. For example, the VFA presidents relate to the operating organization and not the competition, therefore the list of VFA presidents belongs in the history of the organization. Please review and consider whether your edits help to distinguish the competition from the organizations.115.42.10.172 (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the distinction is at all unclear. It is, as you correctly say, one competition operated by two successive bodies, and both the lead and history presently do a good job of reflecting this. I certainly feel your removal of references to the VFA portion of the onfield history from the lead was unhelpful, since it gave the impression that the subject of the article would be just the post-1995 competition. Regarding the VFA presidents section, I believe the header and introductory statement are fairly clear in distinguishing this represents VFA era only; but more to the point, the prose history section would be somewhat of a non sequitur location for a table of former presidents; I'd rather it be forked or deleted than inserted in that location. Aspirex (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't make edits like this. If you have disputes about content, either correct them directly or take them to a talk page for discussion. I've transferred your comments to the talk page. Aspirex (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re AFL Victoria - Yes, that is more appropriate. Thank you. I was overwhelmed by the appalling article. You state "these disputes are based on legal definitions too technical for my understanding" (here) but you need to fully understand these concepts and issues to write authoritatively on the subjects and not confuse the sports, the competitions and the operating organizations. You removed the word "been" from the statement that the VFL "has been operated under the current name since 1996". This exemplifies confusion between the competition and the operating organization. The competition doesn't operate itself! it has been operated by an organization. The VFL article is still confused in regard to the VFA as it is trying to cover both the competition and the organization in the one article.115.42.10.172 (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS. See utter confusion about ARL. Soccer articles were worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.42.10.172 (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freo Dockers

What is wrong with my trivia as its the first time in 183 games? Flipstatic Energy (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short consecutivity sequences like this are rarely notable for the main season page. Partly it's because the achievement in question is seldom notable in its own right; here for example we have a list of streaks of scoring 100+, and three games is so far short of meeting that list that the achievement is trivial. "First time winning consecutive matches since..." also generally gets removed for this reason. It's also because statistical sites like AFLTables don't keep lists of 'most time between instances of three or more consecutive scores above 100', and if a site dedicated to statistics doesn't think it notable to keep record of, then Wikipedia, whose inclusion standards as an encyclopedia should be tighter than the inclusion standards of its references, really shouldn't be including it either. Aspirex (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Git (slang)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Git (slang), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Debuts page

Hey Aspirex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AFL_debuts_in_2023 is really outdated since round 1 could you help me update it? Flipstatic Energy (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This what each row entry should look like. |- |align=""left""|{{sortname|Lachlan|Cowan}}||{{AFL Car}}||{{sort|18 years, 105 days|18 years, 105 days}}||1<ref>{{AFL Tables|ref=L/Lachlan_Cowan.html|alt=Lachlan Cowan}}</ref>||align=""left""|Pick 30, [[2022 AFL draft#2022 national draft|2022 national draft]]

The best place I can find to get a list of debutants is the AFL Tables 'all players by debut' list: https://afltables.com/afl/stats/biglists/bg10.txt This has all of the information you need for the true debutants except for draft history, which you'll need to cross reference the AFL Draft pages to fill in. I'm not aware of a consolidated reference of 'first game for a new club' for players who have changed clubs, so you'll just have to check those manually against the last few years' AFL Draft pages' trades sections. Honestly I don't think it's really in the spirit of a page called "List of AFL debuts" to have a section on traded players anyway.

Hopefully that helps. Aspirex (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_AFL_season&oldid=1167994397

I think the fact that it is a record overpowers it not being at 10 games. Flipstatic Energy (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Freo's 9 game streak was noted and we have Port Adelaides record noted before 10 games (but port probably don't count because they got over 10) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipstatic Energy (talk • contribs) 04:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The standing rules are clear at a 10gm threshold, and the whole point is to avoid commenting on the low-achievement records of the newer clubs (e.g. the Suns have still never scored 150pts, so still don't have a highest score game note because they just don't have a score worthy of comment). The 2015 Freo situation is slightly different because it was a "best start to the season" note rather than a "longest winning streak" note. Aspirex (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok Flipstatic Energy (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My addition to the 2023 AFL Page

You removed the stat about foundation teams Carlton, Melbourne and St Kilda all making the finals in the same year for the first time ever. Given that there's Geelong missing the finals for the first time since 2015 and Carlton making it for the first time since 2013 and whatever else is in there, I thought this was worthy of being included. How do you determine what is cruft and what isn't? Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a guiding principle, I use Talk:2011 AFL season#Gamenotes - notability, a set of guidelines which we've had for the last twelve years to determine what is and isn't included. Now admittedly I wrote the guidelines, but they have been accepted by the project over this time. When something doesn't fall directly within the guidelines (as is the case with this one), the questions I ask to guide my thinking are:

Does the statistic describe some sort of individual/team achievement or failure? Or is it a neutral occurrence which no individual/team would look back upon with either pride or shame?
If we look through history, is this common or uncommon? Do we even have the records or context to know?
Is this something likely to be in lasting memory or mentioned in a pre-game or the AFL Record, or is this a factoid which will be forgotten almost immediately?
Has it come from a traditional media, or is it lifted from Twitter, Facebook or Bruce McAvaney's commentary?

If it doesn't at least meet the positive side of a couple of these, I'll generally argue to remove it. In this case, it comes out on the negative side of all four questions. There is no single person or team which benefited or suffered as the result of this specific combination of teams making/not making finals. I don't know how many combinations of three teams have never played in finals together, giving me no context for whether this is common or not. Lasting memory: if you got a Carlton, St Kilda and Melbourne fan together in a pub five years from now, they're not going reminisce about "hey, remember that time you both made finals as well?" And this comes from a Twitter reference. By comparison. Carlton making finals: it's an achievement which follows a club-record failure (finals drought), so strong case for inclusion. Geelong missing finals: it's a failure the end of an eight-year finals streak, that streak being a non-record achievement which is moderately common, so borderline for inclusion. Highest attendance ever across 9, 13 and 17 rounds: it's an achievement, a record, and has AFL media references, but in the long run these will be completely forgettable since it's the full-year crowds that really matter – so three out of four questions on the positive side, but still a very strong case for removal (I just haven't gotten around to arguing yet). Aspirex (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok wonderful. Thanks for letting me know. I will use these points as guidelines if I want to add something again. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on 2022 Carlton Football Club season

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2022 Carlton Football Club season, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Toyota Legendary Moments for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Toyota Legendary Moments, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toyota Legendary Moments (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on 2023 AFL Grand Final

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2023 AFL Grand Final, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Jack Lowry

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jack Lowry, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on 2023 Carlton Football Club season

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2023 Carlton Football Club season, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:1967TSP

Template:1967TSP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jenks24 (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Jordan Boyd

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jordan Boyd, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzroy/Brisbane Lions

I have noticed that Fitzroy and Brisbane Bears/Brisbane Lions tallies are not combined together. Considering there was technically a merger and that Brisbane have the theme songs/colours of Fitzroy, it seemed inaccurate to me. I may not be aware of technicalities. I noticed that Fitzroy have kept their name and reside in the VAFA but it seems strange that a club can merge without also combining its history e.g. South Melbourne/Sydney. Thanks in advance. 122.104.135.129 (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:AFLW Kan

Template:AFLW Kan has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Grand Final

Hey, just saw you reverted my edit where I included the venues it's been held at. I don't really understand why. How it is currently, feels a bit sloppy with the all but 11 line. Including the venues with their years, feels more appropriate. Didn't want to just undo it. But yeah, can't really understand the revert. Basetornado (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The game is basically always at the MCG, and for the infobox – as a first heads up summary of the most important facts – that's what needs to be emphasised. A complete listing of the rats-and-mice suburban venues dilutes the key message and practically doubles the length of the infobox, which does more harm than good. Aspirex (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with that. It's the page for the Grand Final in general, having the venues it's been played at in the infobox seems like approriate, rather than the sloppy "all but 11" as it is now. Basetornado (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary when proposing deletion

Just a friendly reminder to use an edit summary which clearly mentions the term "prod" when proposing a page for uncontroversial deletion. Edit summary usage is always good, but it is especially important that edit summaries are used when proposing deletion. The reason for this is that articles proposed for deletion that later have the {{proposed deletion}} tag removed should not be proposed for deletion again, but rather sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The only easy way to check if an article was previously proposed for deletion is to look at the edit history and the edit summaries people have left before. Thanks! Lenny Marks (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on 2024 AFL Grand Final

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2024 AFL Grand Final, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]