Talk:Rochfortbridge

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rochfortbridge article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Ignatzmice, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 16 November 2015.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Previous copyedits:
/
	This article was copy edited by Jack Greenmaven on 25 April 2012.

GAA proj =

Untitled

Why is this in the GAA project? (Sarah777 20:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have just removed the GAA project tag. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Rochfortbridge Community Worldwide

Just look at the recent edits to the link to Rochfortbridge Community Worldwide, look at the IP addresses of the editors and tell me that someone out there is just being childish. I don't visit this site very often but on occasion I check to see if the kids have left my website link alone. All I can say is "get a life kids"... signed by webmaster Rochfortbridge Community Worldwide...........PS. if you really want to play please use the sand box provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.181.98 (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Rochfortbridge

I am Wikidrone20000 (Previously Wikidrone2000), I undo edits and also add stuff in. Anything I have undone was either as a result of content being removed completely and replaced with one sided content and replacing it with both sides. The derogatory nature of some comments added in (00:58, 6 February 2007) simply to insult or offend were reverted. Any inputs you have added in that didn't belittle any other editors or were showing your side to the opinion without taking out other persons inputs were kept in and even hilighted and linked to your sources (Westmeath County Library), As a result of that, you posted abusive and insulting messages to my talk page. If anyone is being unreasonable here it is you Denisoneill. I agree with you that there is a lot of to and froing editing going on and that is unfortunate, every editor should be respectful of what other folks have added in and expand on it, recognising other peoples opinion. In your last message to me on my [talk page] you said something about me living in the parish a wet week? What relevance does that have? I don't even live in the parish anymore but had spent enough time there listening to my aunts and uncles talking about the history (Your side AND their side). I only began to intervene when you purposly began to take out reference to present day info ( [User added in info on local clubs to your stuff] only for you to begin [removing it]. I don't like having to revert all of the time but if you were to be more balanced in your input I'd have no problem. In relation to your message to me on my [talk page], I have no intention of contacting you personally or giving you my email as I have better things to be doing that arguing about such simple things that common sense should solve. --Wikidrone20000 11:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trim-down

I just stumbled on this page...This article is currently huge. It needs to be wikified and cleaned up.

Also, is there a large chunk of copyrighted text at the end? If so, that's probably not a great idea... -- Scientizzle 01:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was pretty bad

I have now reduced this article to a stubby level; this is what it was back in December. A lot of the edits after that time showed nothing but copyright violations (or possibly "copypastes"), as well as original research. Please be extremely careful when editing this article from now on, and keep things such as the WP:MOS, WP:NOR, WP:OWN, and other policies. Please note that this version of this article still requires cleanup and copy-editing to meet our standards, and I encourage all, particularly those who are knowledgeable with Irish-related topics, to help out. —P ilotguy (ptt) 01:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! There was just an image added by an anonymous user which I tried to fix, but upon clicking on the image to check its licensing, I saw that it was fair-use. Can the image remain in the article, as it demonstrates a notable place within the town? Gaillimh 21:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information...

A message was left for me saying to leave editing to those who knew the info. I take great umbrage at these type of messages as I have always maintained that the information I typed in was an opinion. A user keeps saying that only he knows the history. I would, with respect, ask that this person puts in their reference sources (not word of mouth). I'll keep putting in the info as I find it out and make it clear where the info came from. Wikipedia is supposed to be an impartial encyclopedic site where information is shared and the reader can gather assumptions based on what they see. It's not a pedestal for individuals to bully, harass and blow their own trumpets. EOM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidrone20000 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Vandalism of Articles

a User is constantly vandalising this artice. Recently they changed the URL of rochfortbridge youth Club to a url that was invalid (You can check in the History (01:07, 16 February 2007)). Please keep an eye out for this person messing about the article. It is hoped that the Wikipedia site would be a fair and respected site for information and nobody wants to have to keep going in and editing vandalism all the time. EOM --Wikidrone20000 10:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link Repetition

http://www.westmeathcoco.ie/developmentPlan/documents/Draft%20Plan/Village%20Maps/Maps%20Rochfortbridge_Village.pdf

The "Link" section shows several links pointing to the same site, a cleanup is required showing one link to this site. perhaps a rename of the link would be better than several links. Panosonic (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArglebargleIV's changes to this article

Over on my talk page, Wikidrone20000 posted this comment. I thought it best to respond to it over here. Here's the rationale for each of my recent changes from 20:33 to 20:50 UTC 22 August 2008.

Lede -- restoring proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation): It was awkwardly worded, with a spelling error, and several previous editors had been doggedly restoring the same iffy lead paragraph every time it was improved. The current version is now grammatical, correctly spelled, and, IMHO, flows a litle better than before. Please don't revert this!
Demographics -- Estimate of 3000 is unreferenced original research, listing of all villages and towns is not needed, proper ref for census number: There was a 1,692 figure in the original paragraph that I could find no basis for. The 1,473 figure for Castlelost in 2006 was the only 2006 figure for Rochfortbridge at all that I could find on the Irish Census website (linked in original paragraph, converted to an inline reference in my version). The estimate of 3,000 I could find no basis for, so I marked that as needing a citation. I didn't see the point at all of listing each and every village and hamlet in Rochfortbridge as part of a demographics section, so I removed it.
adding references section: self-explanatory, needed for the inline reference added to the Demographics section.
History -- Marking as unreferenced. Correcting grammar and awkward sentences.: The History section I left in place, but rewrote it since the grammar was atrocious, phrases were repetitive, and the sentences were awkward. I marked it as unreferenced, since I couldn't find any references for any of it, but I'm fairly certain that it probably can be sourced by someone with more resources than I, so I didn't delete it outright. It there a problem with the way I reworded it?
History -- Changing the unreferenced template to Unreferencedsection: used wrong template in previous edit.
Current events -- This section is still unreferenced commentary and original research, removing it: Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia -- the flow of current events of a small town probably don't belong here. Besides, it wa commentary about how great things are and about how nice the new things in town are, not just a listing of what happened. Wikipedia isn't for boosterism. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Development plans from Westmeath County Council -- Removing links, unless a referenced discussion of the plans is included in the article: Wikipedia shouldn't be a linkfarm -- the links may be useful to those who are interest in Westmeath development plans, but we can't be a lookup directory for the Westmeath City Council. If the links are hard to find, perhaps the Westmeath City Council should modify their website.

Anyway, those are my reasons. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hi, When you put it like that, I reckon you have a point... No harm done, at least I guess I have learned a bit more about how Wikipedia works etc. Keep up the good work!! --Wikidrone20000 (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious content being added

194.165.165.180 (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)I recently edited this page to revert some of the malicious content and to format it in a readable manner. Please use the sand box to if you are unsure how to edit and please leave the content of this page impartial. 194.165.165.180 (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Editing of this Article

There has been an influx of malicious and unsubstantiated edits to this page in recent times.

This page is viewed worldwide and is part of the wikipedia enclycopdia, as such ALL content should be impartial and to the piont. All content should be accurate and free from advertising and local banter. This is not a local newsletter and should be treated as an entry in an enclycopedia.

I will request a freeze on all edits on this page if this malicious editing continues

194.125.34.241 (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rochfortbridge/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

194.165.165.180 (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)The continuous editing of this article is forcing the wiki watchers to shut down all future editing of this article.[reply]

Unless you edit this article in a genuine manner you run the risk of being barred from further edits, not only from this page but from every wikipedia site.

Please treat this article with respect and only edit with content that pertains to the village and post your edit to a worldwide audience with impartial content free from advertising, belittlement or slander. 194.165.165.180 (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 00:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 04:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)