User talk:Ardfern

2008 User talk

Volapük

Hi Adfern! I found your name via the m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and thought you might care about this discussion: m:Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of Volapük Wikipedia. In case you think that deleting stubs is not the best for the Volapuk Wikipedia, you could help us fight against it with your vote. Thanks in advance! Smeira 18:42, 10 Jan 2008

AfD nomination of 1248 in Ireland

An article that you have been involved in editing, 1248 in Ireland, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1248 in Ireland. Thank you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

File:Old form Execute.jpg Wikipedians enforce justice on a miscreant who flagrantly creates content relating to human history, rather than concentrating on fiction. This editor is shamelessly and audaciously creating a detailed historical index to encyclopedic content, when he should be working on something important. This deliberate and repeated denial of wikipedia priorities is wholly unacceptable. He must be stopped!!!!!!. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

LMAO!! Again :) Sarah777 (talk)

Another attack!

Ardfern; just a thought. I am linking years (especially pre-1800) to Year in Ireland as I go along. It is an enormous task but one of the complaints in the AfD (1248) is lack of pages linking to the article. I made a suggestion on the IrlProj page some time back but it was met with studied disinterest! Might be helpful if you changed links to Irish years, especially, say, pre-1500. Sarah777 (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Energy in the Republic of Ireland

Hi, Ardfern. I made proposal to merge categories Category:Energy in the Republic of Ireland and Category:Energy in Ireland. You are welcome to add your comment here.Beagel (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Merging there is indeed a logic for having these cats separately - one refers to the whole island (ie including Northern Ireland), the other refers to the state of the Republic of Ireland only. To merge them means if you want to find out only about the Republic in one cat, you can't. I accept there is as yet no full separation of all cats in this way, but I have been trying to get them separated for some time. It's the right thing to do, so lets not do the wrong thing, just because we haven't got all cats right yet. Help us get all the other relevant cats separated instead.Ardfern (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Did the needful on the merge page. Shows that outsiders will rush in where hardened warriors fear to tread! (Fantastic work on the "years" btw). Sarah777 (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Navigation template for years-in-Ireland artiles

Hi Ardfern, can you take a look at {{YearInIrelandNav}}.

As a demo, I have placed it in 1957 in Ireland, 1798 in Ireland and in 1722 in Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

PS If you like it, I can roll it out across all the articles, using AWB. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks great to me - roll it! (But it means about half my last thousand edits were a waste of time....) Sarah777 (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Sarah, if I had made the box when I promised last December ... :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

PS Ardfern, I have replied on my talk to your comments there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Ash

I have nominated Category:Ash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Geography of Ireland

You may have noticed that Geography of Ireland is on FAR and mainly needs inline citations and some statistics checking. Maybe you can help it being demoted from FA. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments needed

Ardfern, see Category:999 in Ireland. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

omagh bombing

I live in Northern Ireland (well, somebody has to) lol

Anyways, there a specific piece of geographic info in 'Omagh bombing' that I'm not sure about. The article says The warnings mentioned 'Main Street' when there was no 'Main Street' in Omagh at the time. The line is sourced, but... well... is it true? Are there any Wikipedians from Omagh who would know from firsthand experience whether a 'Main Street' exists (and, if so, where it is)? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! When you search for "Main Street, Omagh" into MultiMap you get 4 returns but none are in Omagh itself. That's curious indeed. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's weird. Well, I guess the sentence stays in the article. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Years in Norrn Iron

Hi Ardfern, if you have a mo, I'd welcome your comments on my doodles at User talk:Sarah777#Years_in_Norrn_Iron (about a template). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a peer review of EasyJet

Hello! Based on your areas of interest, we believe that you may be interested in participating in the peer review of EasyJet. Comments from reviewers are needed over the next few weeks to assist editors in improving the article; we would be very grateful if you could spare some of your time to help out! If you would prefer not to receive such invitations in the future, please leave a message on this page, and we won't trouble you again. If you have any questions about the review process, you can ask them here. Thanks! Wexcan  Talk  20:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

CatBot?

Are you bot? CatBot? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant!

Ardfern, looking at your latest categories for "years in Ireland". Brilliant. You have the deletionists in a tizzy! Maybe they'd like to delete the "years in Europe" categories?!! Sarah777 (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not so brilliant, actually. If you continue recreating categories which have just been deleted through CfD and DRV, you will be blocked for disruption. Fram (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And for all clarity: creating the ones that were not deleted through CfD / DRV because they didn't exist yet, but are essentially exactly the same, fall under this warning as well. Stop creating those "years in Ireland" categories (everything before 1100), or be blocked for a disruptive WP:POINT violation. Fram (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

24 hour block

You were warned, but continued[1] anyway. 24 hour block for disruptive editing to make a WP:POINT. Fram (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org.

No discussion, no appeal, just an immediate close down. I read the first message and minutes later I am blocked without discussion. Its no wonder people give up on Wikipedia when they get treated like this. No attempt was made to look at the context of what was being done and its wider context in Years in Europe and work being done there. Remove this block and have some sensible discussion and get a consistent approach. Ardfern (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To be precise, 35 minutes between the first message and the block, 35 minutes in which you didn't feel the need to discuss or appeal, but continued to add the categories to numerous articles, and to create the articles. The sensible discussion was the CfD and the DRV: the consistency was being applied now, but you tried to disrupt this, despite the CfD, the DRV, and the two messages above. If you stop creating these categories, I have no problem with you being unblocked. If you intend to continue editing like you were doing before the block, I see no reason to lift it. Fram (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Will create no more such categories pre-1100 as requested, so please unblock. Will review need for further discussion in light of need for consistent approach overall. Ardfern (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been unblocked, of course. Further discussion is of course welcome. Can I give you one example to think about? The categories like Category:Years of the 9th century in Ireland contained exactly the same number of subcategories as they contained articles, since all these subcategories contained exactly one article, which was also in this parent category. This is quite useless, and is contrary to the WP:CAT guidelines, which e.g. says that "Usually, articles should not be in both a category and its subcategory". I understand a certain wish for consistency, but I fear that in this case, it was pushed to a rather absurd extreme, without any need for it. I have changed the template in five or ten minutes, so these categories are no longer automatically created for older years. All pages are categorized in decade or centry categories, making them easily accesible and making browsing from one to another easy (easier, in fact, than through the individual year categories). Fram (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking not yet effective - please remove. Ardfern (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

{{subst:Request accepted|Autoblock of 86.156.6.197 lifted or expired.}

What can I say?

This is getting more and more like some institution run by a cult of abusers. 40k edits in "main"; not a single cross word ever uttered - and you get blocked. At least I put myself about as they say; there is simply NO valid excuse for blocking you no matter what self-serving rationalisation the fascists come up with. Plus, the block is totally illegitimate as you are using an undeleted system of categorisation. Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I note that there was no valid warning either. I presume Alison and Fozzie will now wake-up and smell what is going on here? Sarah777 (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I think you missed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 30#Years in Ireland. Short version is no more by-year categories before "1100 in Ireland". The templates have been updated, but they'll take a while to propagate the change to all the articles. As far as one-offs go, BHG was arguing that it was one big scheme. Creating individual categories for two or three articles doesn't really fit with that. Anyway, she said she'd bring this up at WikiProject Ireland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What can I say? If I'd read this page I'd have seen that you didn't miss it at all. I'm not meaning to be a bastard about this, but please stop. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Years in Ireland

Hi Fram, many thanks for the blocking and unblocking experience last night. Good to know we are being so rigorously policed. I can entirely understand the logic of not having Years in Ireland cats with only a single article in them, pre-1100, or at any point, but not when there is more than one article in the cat (eg 195 and 331). The year related article now appears in the decade cat, unrelated to the year in question. This means that readers cannot find all articles related to a single year in one place. This is not good for a reader/researcher and is simply not logical. It makes finding material relating to a year more difficult, all for the sake of establishing a year cat. Logical access is more important than Wikibureaucracy. I would request, therefore, that where there is more than one article related to a year, a year cat should be established, eg in the case of 195 and 331 above. Ardfern (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please fill these articles with more information. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 02:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not just down to me - why don't you help? - after all Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative thing. Ardfern (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A query about population figures for NI villages with <500 inhabitants

Hello there, I am planning to add population statistics to Ballyronan. As the NINIS site only holds statistics on villages with a population of over 500, I was wondering for example, how you got the population for Killinchy. Derry Boi has suggested contacting them directly; did you email NINIS with a Freedom of Information request? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Regards, EJF (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi EJF. All the info I got is from the Ninis website (which doesn't appear to be working today). Under 500 inhabitants doesn't appear through queries, but there is a list (possibly a pdf list) somewhere on the site detailing those under 500. I will have another look when the Ninis site is up again and see if I can find it. Ardfern (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the site is down due to hacking as I see there was a BBC report on it. Hopefully it will be working soon! Thanks for offering to help, EJF (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Kilkeel High School

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Kilkeel High School, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Year in country categories

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the purpose of the categories, but isn't a category like Category:1509 in France intended for events of that year which took place in France, rather than merely those which involved French participation but occurred elsewhere? Something like Category:France in 1509 would be the more obvious name for a broader one.

(I'm asking because articles like Battle of Agnadello would be included in the latter but not the former; and I'm somewhat confused as to which one it's really meant to be.) Kirill 13:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kirill. In my view, cats like 1509 in France should be used for all articles that are about events in which France was involved in 1509 - this has been the common practice to date. As a reader I would want to see everything related to France in 1509, events that took place in France would be very restrictive and not give a historical or accurate perspective. Otherwise, for instance, you could not include the Battle of Trafalgar for 1805 in England as it took place at sea and not in England, yet it was a major English event. Another renamed cat would only further add to confusion and work to be done. Hope this makes the logic clear. Ardfern (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The organization makes sense; but perhaps it might be worth considering a rename of the entire category tree to the "Country in year" form rather than the "Year in country" form, since the "X in country" naming is commonly used to classify exclusively by geographic location in other parts of the category system. Kirill 14:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

195... in France

Hey, are you sure that events outside of France should be in the category "1953/2/whichever in France"? Is that category not just for events happening in France? Should Operation Camargue for example not be in 1953 in Vietnam, for instance? Regards, SGGH ^speak! 11:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi SGGH - In my view, cats like 195.. in France should be used for all articles that are about events in which France was involved in 195.. - this has been the common practice to date. As a reader I would want to see everything related to France in 195.., events that took place in France only would be very restrictive and not give a historical or accurate perspective. Otherwise, for instance, you could not include the Battle of Trafalgar for 1805 in England as it took place at sea and not in England, yet it was a major English event. Operation Camargue should indeed be in 1953 in Vietnam, but also in 1953 in France since it was an event involving the French. Hope this makes the logic clear. Ardfern (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, cheers! SGGH ^speak! 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh FSM...

Wow...not sure how I got involved in this mess. Could I, um, back out? I just reverted what appeared to be removal of a lot of content...Teh Rote (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1809

Hi Ardfern, we got a request on the helpchannel that the data was copied into 1809, and the page should be a redirect, and i didn't notice the merger was opposed, so sorry for that, the user requesting it in IRC is named IngerAlHaosului. Cheers. Mion (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mion - ok as long as article reverted. Why are you taking requests on the helpchannel (whatever that is} to merge articles from people who are not registered and cannot be involved in discussion? Even if merging was right, I should have been consulted as the author of this and a large series of similar articles. Happy that info is now in 1809, but 1809 in France remains a legitimate article in its own right as part of the History by year/by country series. Ardfern (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes i took for granted that the discussion was followed, which wasn't, the 1809 page is also reset to 3 mar, to prevent double data. Cheers. Mion (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your message

This was a reply to a note I left on 7 May 2004 right? Things have moved on a bit since then... --BozMo talk 16:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

many apologies - for some reason Wikid77 sent it to me after 1809 in France was merged.Ardfern (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OIC I think the merge demerge was done wrong. This comment wasn't on that page but no problem. --BozMo talk 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair Enough

I can see your point about Year by Country articles. It just seemed a bit pointless to me when I first saw 1809 in France. And naturaly, I have no problem with you restoring the article if someone merged it without reasonable discussion :) AlmightyClam 18:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to 1948 in France, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. many thanks for the welcome, however, two minutes more research might have revealed that I am a long time contributor and know the rules about referencing extremely well. Another minutes research would have shown that every contribution to 1948 in France (and the other Years in France articles I have contributed) is taken from another Wiki article. These Years articles are essentially index articles using Wiki sources largely. Hope this makes things a bit clearer. Ardfern (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NOT#LINK. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, so we're off the citing sources thing and we're now on to saying these articles are not Wiki suitable. Oops - that means the 106 Years in France articles and the 373 Years in Northern Ireland and Years in Ireland articles I have added are not suitable and that the thousands of articles in Years by country and the thousands of Year and Date articles are not suitable either. I don't think so - these are all integral to Wikipedia. Please just let me get on with the work.Ardfern (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Who said these are not suitable? I am saying again and again that these are good articles and suitable for wikipedia. These are important articles. I am just telling you to follow WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said at the start all the material for these is from existing Wiki articles.Ardfern (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Football in Ireland

I have nominated Category:Football in Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Association football in Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Final warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your constructive edits.
You have been repeatedly warned that adding copious quantities of historical indexes and categories is a dangerous distraction from the important work of creating infoboxes on cartoon characters, and that your failure to participate in flame wars, edit wars, and POV disputes is quite excessively civil.
Unless you stop, you will be awarded a barnstar. ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi BHG - very many thanks for the final warning - I knew this excessive civility thing would get me into trouble. No more barnstars please - you can get too much of a good thing. Good to hear from you. Just keeping my head down and getting on. Thanks again. Ardfern (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm just glad that it did come across as tongue-in-cheek, because irony is notoriously difficult to communicate online. Anyway, I'll leave off the barnstars if you insist, and just enjoy seeing a steady accumulation of your chronology-building work popping up on my watchlist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL! This miscreant certainly needs careful watching :) Sarah777 (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarah - good to hear from you - with you and BHG watching there's not much chance of me being a miscreant - on with the work. Thanks.Ardfern (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Greenisland

Hello there.

I noticed the article on Greenisland has recently been updated with business names and telephone numbers. I'm contacting you as you have previously worked with that article and because of the awards on your page, I thought you may be a good person to ask. Is the use of business names and telephone numbers permitted by wikipedia in this way? It seems to read like a local yellow pages now rather than an encyclopedic article. I couldn't find any information to specifically exclude it, so I'm asking your opinion on whether the edits should be reverted or if the article is ok as it stands? Wikipedia has an awful lot of rules for articles, I get lost in them!

Cheers. Mojowibble (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mojowibble - just had a look at Greenisland - bit of a mess - business names and telephone numbers should not be included - it reads like a telephone directory, which Wikipedia is not. I know only too well, and from bitter experience, how difficult it is to know the rules for articles, but have a look at Wikipedia:About (3.2 Wikipedia content criteria) and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (2.6 Wikipedia is not a directory). Should the original contributor dispute your reversion you could point them to the second reference. Trust this is helpful Ardfern (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the help. I've taken an attempt to clean up the article a bit. I think the remaining list and the list of churches, clubs and schools etc. should be acceptable but let me know if you think otherwise and I'll address it. Thanks again. Mojowibble (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Banjax Studios

I have nominated Category:Banjax Studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Millennium Air

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Millennium Air, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Россавиа ^Диалог 19:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits & categories

Hi, thanks for your work on year categories. However, please consider marking the edits when you just add or modify a category as minor. Please see Help:Minor edit for full description, but it would help to sift through the watchlist and recent changes list. Thanks! Renata (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland

Hi,

I'd like to take the opportunity to advise you on two matters which, being a member or former member of the Northern Ireland WikiProject or it's sister project on Belfast, you might be interested in the following submission about a recent terrorist attack Wikipedia:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board#News.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to ask for your help in reviving the Northern Ireland WikiProject. Given that there are only a small number of Wikipedians from Northern Ireland or interested specifically in the region, the project needs all the help it can get.

Cheers, --Setanta747 (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)