User talk:BrianBeahr

Infoboxes[edit]

Hi BrianBeahr. Can you please stick to the standardised infoboxes? Infoboxes are for presenting a summary of important facts from within the article, and for example, the infobox fields such as "last name" are just for the person's last name. I understand that you have taken time to make the pictures that show the St Kilda colours and player numbers, but they do not add anything to the article, and instead, just push the information in the infobox further down so it's not immediately viewable. Image captions should be relevant - e.g "Riewoldt training at Moorabbin Oval, 2009", which explains the image, instead of just repeating the person's name. I would appreciate it if you took time to explain your changes in edit summaries or on talk pages, rather than just simply reverting other people's changes. Everyone is trying to improve the articles and we need to work collaboratively. Thanks, Somno (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Information should be in the infobox in my opinion. BrianBeahr (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked at the WP:AFL talkpage for further input. Regards, Somno (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please stop messing around with the infoboxes until consensus has been reached. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stkfcnumber26.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stkfcnumber26.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jevansen (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates[edit]

Hi BrianBeahr. In light of the comments at the AFL wikiproject talk page that there may be too many templates used in the St Kilda articles, can you please consider not creating any more templates, and converting these templates to lists where appropriate? Templates are supposed to link topics that a reader may want to jump between, and having too many templates will confuse the reader. Nick Riewoldt currently has 14 templates - does having this many templates help the reader? Is it necessary to have a template that lists the players in the 2004 pre-season cup, when there's already this article that you created: 2004 Wizard Home Loans Cup? Is it likely that someone reading Riewoldt's article will want to directly jump to an article about Troy Schwarze or Peter Bennett? You need to consider these issues before creating templates. Have a think about the templates you've created and consider whether they are actually helpful for a casual reader. (It seems that consensus says otherwise at the AFL talkpage.) You can mark them with {{db-author}} if you conclude that they are not helpful. I would rather that you have a chance to take the necessary action yourself, rather than having me take them all to templates for discussion. Regards, Somno (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are necessary.

Sorry, but I don't agree. Somno feel free to nominate for deletion. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are fantastic reference materila and are there to disoplkay all the categories that each player fits into - fantastic fast click reference.

Dont delete BrianBeahr (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Champ, can you please stop creating templates for the time being. It's fantastic that you're spending so much time trying to improve St Kilda Saints related articles, but I'm worried all these templates are going to get deleted and then you would have wasted a lot of time creating them and adding them to player pages. Perhaps you could create some player articles instead? As long as they have played a VFL/AFL game from 1897-2009, they pass the notability guidelines and can't be deleted. That would be of great help to WikiProject AFL and there are hundreds of players still without articles. Perhaps you could also look at making List of St Kilda Football Club players a bluelink? Jevansen (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:St Kilda FC 1997 MPT[edit]

Template:St Kilda FC 1997 MPT has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. The-Pope (talk) 07:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of St Kilda FC 2009 MPT[edit]

The article St Kilda FC 2009 MPT has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Is a navbox, probably incorrectly created in mainspace.

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. The-Pope (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using poper edit summaries[edit]

You really should get in the habit of using edit summaries. I would've appreciated an explanation of why you reverted my changes to the Nick Riewoldt article. Too many navboxes on a page is an eyesore, and not that useful especially if most of them are quite insignificant. You may do well by reading WP:OWN as well. -- œ ^™ 19:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St Kilda[edit]

Can you please not add 2009 results in a listed format and not add the 2010 fixtures, as this is not in sync with the rest the rest of the article and is not encyclopedic. Thankyou. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've breached the three revert rule. Because of this I can't continue to revert. Please stop and discuss otherwise you will be blocked like you have on four previous occasions. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 09:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vadalism of the article by you is not allowed. BrianBeahr (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I am not vandalising the article. There has been discussion on the St Kilda talkpage of things like this before. No other AFL article on a club has the following years fixtures or the previous seasons scores in a list format. Please put you efforts into improving the encyclopedia. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 09:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The material is sourced and referenced dont vandalize the article. BrianBeahr (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not vandalising the article. Yes, great that you've sourced your additions but on this occasion they are not needed. I'm not going to comment anymore until further input from another editor. Thankyou. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 09:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, none of this would happen if you communicated with other editors. This is a collaborative encyclopaedia. I notice that you've reported Aaron for continuing to 'remove sourced and referenced material such as the 2010 fixture and 2009 results'. Just because you provide a reference for something doesn't mean it warrants inclusion on an article nor does removing something that is referenced constitute vandalism. Someone who 'continues to make minor changes after new information is added' is also not vandalism, it's something wikipedia editors are supposed to do!. Jevansen (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, don't put comments on my user page. Secondly, don't threaten me with unwarranted warnings and falsely accuse me of "vandalising" this article. Thirdly, don't assume ownership of this or any other St Kilda-related articles. Fourthly, try to edit articles according to Wikipedia style policies instead of your own preferences. I already spend far too much time correcting your many spelling, punctuation, grammatical and other style problems. I will continue to edit articles according to Wikipedia policies and to improve phrasing and content according to English language principles and common sense. If you can't accept other editors making changes to your edits then that is your problem. Afterwriting (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on St Kilda Football Club. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of St Kilda FC 2009 MPT[edit]

A tag has been placed on St Kilda FC 2009 MPT requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. The-Pope (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing to edit-war after coming off a recent block for the same, consistently failing to edit collaboratively and in a fashion conducive to building good-quality content, displaying article ownership, and abusing Wikipedia's processes (specifically WP:AIV) to make a point. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. EyeSerene^talk 12:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

The page was being vadalized - i was not involved in an edit war. I placed sourced information on the page and it was removed repeatedly.

I was doing the right thing. I have added all relevent researched encyclopedia information and added references.

If my edits are better and have better references and edits that administrators - perhaps you should admire and not touch.

I have been adding references for all the material I added.

The fixture has been placed on the article and I filled in some information on the dates and times of the matches scheduled for 2010 (co-operative editing that's called).

Then someone removed the fixture - pretending it is not valid information.

The club is competing in the 2010 AFL Season.

Other pages have the fixture for 2010 on them as well.

Perhaps you should spend more time keeping an eye on people who put a dot, hyphen or comma on other peoples edits.

While my edits over the last of months are carefully researched, resourced, referenced and well presented - there were no arguments started by others while I was editing them.

Why was one started now.

I was not involved in an edit war. I have not broken the three revert thing. The person who removed the fixture information has broken the three revert rule by removing the fixture information more than three times for no valid reason.

Decline reason:

The only exception to WP:3RR is reverting vandalism. Although you attempted to label other user's edits as vandalism, they were not, you were in a content dispute. Your comments on the talk page show an unwillingness to engage in meaningful conversation regarding your edits, as they are simple orders and threats aimed at the others involved in the dispute. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request reason:

The information (the 2010 fixture) was added by another person and I co-opratively added further information to it - have you blocked them?]

I was reverting vandalsim - did you block the vandal?

"The page was being vadalized - i was not involved in an edit war.

I placed sourced information on the page and it was removed repeatedly.

I was doing the right thing. I have added all relevent researched encyclopedia information and added references.

If my edits are better and have better references and edits that administrators - perhaps you should admire and not touch.

I have been adding references for all the material I added.

The fixture has been placed on the article and I filled in some information on the dates and times of the matches scheduled for 2010 (co-operative editing that's called).

Then someone removed the fixture - pretending it is not valid information.

The club is competing in the 2010 AFL Season.

Other pages have the fixture for 2010 on them as well.

Perhaps you should spend more time keeping an eye on people who put a dot, hyphen or comma on other peoples edits.

While my edits over the last of months are carefully researched, resourced, referenced and well presented - there were no arguments started by others while I was editing them.

Why was one started now.

I was not involved in an edit war. I have not broken the three revert thing.

The person who removed the fixture information has broken the three revert rule by removing the fixture information more than three times for no valid reason."

Decline reason:

You were asked repeatedly to discuss by the other editors, but you chose to accuse them of vandalism and keep reverting. We can't get anywhere if you do not admit fault or understand what you have done wrong. m.o.p 01:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request reason:

I was reverting vandalism

Decline reason:

See above. Also, if you keep making unblock requests without addressing the core issue here, access to your talk page will be disallowed. Please take this seriously. m.o.p 01:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request reason:

The information (the 2010 fixture) was added by another person and I co-operatively added further information to it.

It was then removed (reverted to before it was added) for no valid reason - i put it back.

The vandal then reverted the article again (which i put back).

I was reverting vandalsim.

They have been blocked for breaking your own precious wiki laws i take it (four reverts by them). BrianBeahr (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Content dispute. Not vandalism. No excuse for edit warring. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brian you have been doing this for a while now. You also refuse to listen to what is said and just carry on your merry way. Also, please understand my actions weren't vandalism. Calling me a vandal will not help your cause. Also, "Other pages have the fixture for 2010 on them as well." What club pages? Please inform me so I can remove them. What if every club has all their games for 110+ years in a table, it will become ridiculous. If you want to have these tables, I suppose you could create a separate article if you look after it. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality edits with references. I wasnt edit warring (block them). Administrators arent allowed to start edit wars or break the three revert rule either. Wiki by the rules you cliam others break and block them for reverting and edit warring towards me. BrianBeahr (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were edit warring because you were told the edits were not within the rules of Wikipedia, and you refused to listen to people who knew. Your edits were not encyclopaedic, and that's the end of it. Accept your ban, take a break - and maybe re-apply at a later date and show that you are willing to edit within the rules. Start with a refresher on what Wikipedia is not with particular attention to point 4 of this part. AFL-Cool 10:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:St Kilda FC 1965 MPP[edit]

Template:St Kilda FC 1965 MPP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. The-Pope (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:St Kilda FC 2009 MPT[edit]

Template:St Kilda FC 2009 MPT has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. The-Pope (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:St Kilda Football Club List[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:St Kilda Football Club List requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. The-Pope (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

There has been no disruptive editing from me. Factual information and tense corrections are not disruptive editing. You cant block someone for their editing being better than yours

Decline reason:

Edit warring is very specifically a form of disruptive editing, whether you consider the "factual information" added to be "better" or not. As long as you believe this behavior to be acceptable, you are probably not going to find editing here to be very productive or pleasant, I'm afraid. - Vianello (Talk) 01:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy deletion of Jack James[edit]

Hello BrianBeahr, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created on October 28 2009, Jack James, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:81.154.169.18 (page has mainspace links, and 7 edits). This has been done because the page seems to be about a person, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:81.154.169.18. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of 81.154.169.18 (talk · contribs) 15:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:2004 Wizard Cup Players[edit]

Template:2004 Wizard Cup Players has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jenks24 (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox AFL National Cup[edit]

Template:Infobox AFL National Cup has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox VFL National Cup. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of St Kilda Football Club leading goalkickers[edit]

The article List of St Kilda Football Club leading goalkickers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

All of the content on this page is currently present in comprehensive tables (which include additional information) on the main St Kilda Football Club page and the companion AFLW Page. This page's purpose is already fufilled there as a result, and renders this page as a content fork. I would redirect, but a redirect does not seem applicable due to the fact the information is split across two pages for the different facets of the the club.

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. Empole1 (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]