Please note: When creating a redirect do not just creat it with a link. When Doing this the redirect will not auto Redirect. The correct way of creating a redirect is by using the #R button on the edit toolbar and then entering in the brackets that appear the article to which you want the redirect to go to. --Natl1 14:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Garda Síochána Reserve, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Garda Síochána Reserve. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Ori.livneh 16:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created tha article for Loughmoe Castle. Since you've edited the page for Loughmore, I thought you might have some information to add! ConDem^Talk 21:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add any information you have directly to the Loughmoe Castle article! By the way, remember to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ . This will produce your username, and the time you made your comment. ConDem^Talk 21:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Since you're pretty new, here are some links you might find useful!

  The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help pages

  Tutorial

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

ConDem^Talk 21:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and feel free to contact me on my talk page for help, etc! ConDem^Talk 21:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! ConDem^Talk 17:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I agree with your point that constitutionally a TD ceases to be a TD when the Dáil is dissolved - but elsewhere in Wikipedia they appear to be listed as TDs up to the date of the election. Whichever method is used, I think it should be consistent. DrFrench 16:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully ask you not to redirect Joe O'Reilly to John Joe O'Reilly. I discovered while creating entry to Members of 23rd Seanad that there was no entry for Joe O'Reilly but that the page was re directed to John Joe O'Reilly a person who died some years ago and was coincicently also a politician. Joe O'Reilly is alive and well and merits an article as a serving national politician. John Joe O'Reilly who had a different albeit similar name can no longer take the page for Joe O'Reilly in my opinion. Rigger30 12:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... oops. My fault. I figured you were changing the re-direct as vandalism, which is completely wrong. My fault, I'm sorry. However, since the redirect was legit, a disamb page is probably in order. Or something to that effect. But I should not have reverted your edits, for which I apologize. Gscshoyru 12:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise! I suspect you had't time to read all the article. You meant well! Rigger30 12:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could creat disamb page it would be great. Relatively new to this and not sure how to do it! Rigger30 12:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes two of us... I'm not that good at content-adding. But, the reference is here: WP:D So try that. And thanks for understanding. Gscshoyru 12:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, When adding new articles or new categories, please include the persons surname and name (in that order) after the category title to ensure that they are listed correctly in the category concerned. Better still, use the DEFAULTSORT option (see Wiki markup box). Look at the end of these changes to see what I mean. Keep up the good work.--Damac 06:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Aindrias Ó Caoimh, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under 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.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Darkwind (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this article removal and wondered if this was the Irish Attorney General. I would have though him a notable Irish person. ww2censor 17:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This guy was/is an Irish High Court Judge and is currently a judge of the European Court of Justice, or is listed on the wikipedia ECJ page as a member. Rigger30 14:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to reply with a copy of this whole post on my talk page as I like to keep discussions together. I watch you page if I post here.

I see you recreated the page but without content—you really need to add some content even with the hangon tag. Both names are spelt in many different ways: Andreas, Andrias, O'Cuív, and occasionally in the English—O'Keeffe. I posted some extra info on the talk page for you. I will see what I can dig up. ww2censor 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should look at Attorney General of Ireland to see that your new article is linking to the AG I referred to in my post on the talk page, so a disambiguation page will be needed or different article titles. You should probably put in at least as much as is in the Niall Fennelly page. ww2censor 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who was Attorney General was a different guy. I have way of proving this for article purposes but the dates for his being attorney general are in the 1950s. As the guy we are discussing was a High Court Judge quite recently the ages wouldn't add up given that judges have to retire at I think it's 70 years. I'll dig more probably related. As for updating the article all i see when i go to the article is the deletion log. Rigger30 21:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I told you. They both have the same name which is why I suggested there needs to be a disambiguation page and the names should be moved to some slightly more appropriate name as Wikipedia cannot have two articles of the same name. Andreas Ó Caoimh was a well respected AG and legal personage, just an notable as the current High Court Judge. I don't have any more biographical info on the ex-AGs but his work on the Lawless definitely makes him notable. Your current judge does not have any specific notable things written about him online that I can find and time seems irrelevant to their notability besides 8 years as AG is quite significant being the longest holder of that position jointly with Colm Condon. I suggest a renaming to Aindrias Ó Caoimh (Attorney General) and Aindrias Ó Caoimh (High Court judge) with a disambig page with the current name. when you have assembled some facts about the current judge. ww2censor 22:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I decided to make the disambiguation page and made your judge Aindrias Ó Caoimh (barrister) and his father is now at Aindrias Ó Caoimh (Attorney General) where a good bit of additional info has been added. have a look at List of Members of the European Court of Justice to see that they were both already listed there for quite some time. ww2censor 03:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's where i originally created the page from. I saw there was no link and made the page with the intention of going back to it. I was doing some work creating and updating pages for Irish Supreme Court Judges at the time. In the end the page was dropped before I got a chance to return to it. Thanks for your input and help much appreciated Rigger30 15:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't stop looking for more info and making constructive edits. If you need any help in the future, just ask. ww2censor 16:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the process of putting what I found up at the moment!Rigger30 16:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the assessment of Irish articles has fallen off the radar but recently Flowerpotman, Sarah777 and I have been doing a little work on this as well as actually classifying articles (actually Sarah has done the most work). Anyway, you are listed as a member of the WikiProject hence this post.

• The first thing that needs doing is to work on the WikiProject template. Actually there are two templates both of which get recorded by the assessment statistics bot that collects the ratings and creates the listings in the category Category:Ireland articles by quality. The two project templates are {{Irelandproj}} listed on the main project page and {{WikiProject Ireland}} listed on the assessment page—the first allows both quality and importance rating as well as nesting but no reviewer comments, while the second allows quality rating and comments but the importance does not seem to work and comments are not included. This needs to be fixed, so we use one that works fully—can you help?

• The next thing is to decide if we just let editors assess as they wish or to create some criteria or guidelines for rating the quality and importance of the Irish articles. Personally I am in favour of some guidelines—some will be easy to decide while others are a little more complex. What do you think?

• Some projects make lists of articles for assessment while other go after groups of articles by category. What should we do? A mixture of both by using a "To do list"?

• As of the last assessment statistics bot run on Sunday, August 20, only 1462 articles have been tagged, of which 1156 have been assessed for quality but 660 of these have no importance value.

• Besides these 1462 there must be hundreds more untagged articles that should be tagged when we get the template issue mentioned above fixed.

We are not bad in our assessments but some projects have all their articles assessed while others are lacking more than we are. We can really use a few active editors to bring assessments to the fore. Please reply on the assessment talk page as to what you can do. Please help out. ww2censor 17:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reply, as I requested above, should be to the project and not personally to me, so I will put it there for you. BTW, you might want to put the assessment page on your watch list. ww2censor 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Terrence Slowey, 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Terrence Slowey. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right! I've been a bit testy lately. Please see the talk page of Bertie Ahern. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article L3205 road, 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Maethordaer (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rigger30! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. 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 this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 944 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Nial Fennelly - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Mountjoy Prison helicopter escape appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to the page Mountjoy Prison helicopter escape appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, the edit you just made is a revert to a previous version. O Fenian (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. O Fenian (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating 1RR restriction on Mountjoy Prison helicopter escape after being warned. on the page Mountjoy Prison helicopter escape. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Courcelles 20:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

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).

Rigger30 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

(No reason given)

Decline reason:

The appeal below is not made subject to a community discussion because it has no chance of succeeding: it does not invoke a reason that justifies violating a revert restriction. See WP:AEBLOCK for other appeal options.  Sandstein  21:27, 31 October 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.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

[[User:<rigger30>|<rigger30>]] ([[User talk:<rigger30>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/<rigger30>|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/<rigger30>|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/<rigger30>|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/<rigger30>|block user]] · block log) – Rigger30 (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

<Text>

<To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating 1RR restriction on Mountjoy Prison helicopter escape after being warned. on the page Mountjoy Prison helicopter escape. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Courcelles 20:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC) -->

Administrator imposing the sanction

[[User:< Courcelles>|< Courcelles>]] ([[User talk:< Courcelles>|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/< Courcelles>|contribs]] · [[Special:Log/block/< Courcelles>|blocks]] · [[Special:Log/protect/< Courcelles>|protections]] · [[Special:Log/delete/< Courcelles>|deletions]] · [[Special:Log/move/< Courcelles>|page moves]] · [[Special:Log/rights/< Courcelles>|rights]] · [[Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/< Courcelles>|RfA]])

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by <rigger30>[edit]

The text I edited was in NPOV language. It used the term 'volunteer' to describe IRA members. No neutral person in Ireland describes IRA members as such. The only organisation who usually do are Sein Fein who are the political wing of the IRA.

My logic for using the trem terrorist is as follows: 1. The IRA is a terrorist organisation under the Offences Against the State Act 1939 as amended.

2. The article had already stated the people were in jail for IRA offences. If they were in jail they were previously convicted by a court. As they were convicted for IRA offences they were terrorists as they were members of a terrorist organisation.

The editing of the piece about 'internment in all but name' was because of the non neutral point of view of the sentence.

Similarly with all my other edits

It is my opinion that the article as it appeared before my edits has a non neutral point of view which seems to be in favour of or lends credence to the IRA.

For any editor who does not know the IRA is a terrorist organisation which led a terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland to overthrow the legitimate government of that country from 1969 to the late 1990s a campaign which led to the deaths of over 3,500 people and a multiple of injured. Rigger30 (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by < Courcelles>[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by <rigger30>[edit]

Result of the appeal by <rigger30>[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Hello, Rigger30. You have new messages at Mo ainm's talk page.
Message added 20:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

You appear to be unaware that the IRA is a terrorist organisation and that therefore any 'volunteer' as you term them are terrorists. Expressing the view that they are terrorists under the law because of their conviction by a court is not a NPOV it is a statement of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigger30 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of WP:TERRORIST, what I think they are and what you think they are is not relevant. Mo ainm~Talk 20:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your, my or wikipedia's defintion of a terrorist is irrelevant as regards the IRA being a terrorist organisation. The only definition that applies is the one used in Irish law contained in the Offences Against the State Act 1939. That's the only one accepted by the Irish Courts. Rigger30 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if I find a quote that calls them freedom fighters which some people call them that is ok so. Mo ainm~Talk 20:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the only definition that applies is the one contained in the Offences Against the State Act 1939, that would be unlawful since the word "terrorist" (or any similar word) appears nowhere in the Act. It would appear you have scored an own goal. O Fenian (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And are you not a terrorist if you are convicted of being a member of an unlawful organisation? After all it was declared illegal for engaging in terrorist activities including the murder of soldiers, policemen and government officials in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and also in Ireland Rigger30 (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The only definition that applies is the one used in Irish law contained in the Offences Against the State Act 1939". O Fenian (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you are missing the point they didn't consider themselves as terrorists but as freedom fighters, so we remain neutral and use neither term. Can you not see why we do this? Mo ainm~Talk 21:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not missing the point. The Irish parliament has passed a law that makes the IRA an illegal organisation because of the very real threat it poses to the safety and security of it's citizens and the citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What a terrorist organisation thinks of itself is irrelevant and should not be equated with the opinion of a legitimate government. Rigger30 (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a "legitimate government" we are an encyclopedia that strives to remain neutral it is one of our core policies see WP:NPOV. So we dont take a side no matter what we as editors feel. Mo ainm~Talk 21:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorists are people who maim and kill, and in my experience usually innocent people going about their daily lives. 3,500 such people were killed during the conflict started by the IRA. Policemen and soldiers and government officials and innocent civilians are entitled to go about theri lawful business without being shot or blown to bits by terrorists. I won't bow to using terms other than terrorists to describe people who engage in such acts. I will also not change from calling people jailed for such activities terrorists. You can if you wish. Rigger30 (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be like what is happening in Afghanistan were people at a wedding are blown to pieces is that a terrorist act? Mo ainm~Talk 21:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Al Qaeda are terrorists too you are beginning to see the picture! Rigger30 (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't "Al Qaeda" it was the US that did it so is it still a terrorist act? Mo ainm~Talk 21:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate actions of a legimate army in a war zone. Accidents happen. But most of them were terrorists and the terrorists started the war so what's your point? Legit Afgan govt needs American help a few people get killed in the crossfire. Sadly war is ugly. Rigger30 (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the killing of 40 civilians including two dozen children is ok, even when the afgan government have asked the US to stop the bombings. I know were your coming from now and it is just trying to score points. Mo ainm~Talk 21:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rigger30, I would give up on this. You are involved in an edit war with a clique of users who consider Irish Republicanism to be on a par with the red cross. Expect a sarcastic article depicting the IRA as angels to be considered a reliable source to pop up shortly.Factocop (talk) 10:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Factocop, I'm well aware who I'm dealing with. I reckon your prediction is right. I edited the article to begin with because I hate seeing factual inaccuracies in an article which was linked to the Mainpage. The IRA are a terrorist organisation who wish to overthrow the legitimate government of a constituent part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who are despite much provocation over the years very understanding of the consequent difficulties caused to the governance of Ireland. All the IRA wish to do is promote bigotry and hatred of anyone with a British identity. True Irish people respect the wishes of all on the island of Ireland to identify with Ireland, the UK, neither or both. Rigger30 (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As you tagged yourself as being in Ireland, I hope you don't mind me reaching out. We know have a recognised Wikimedia Community Ireland User Group and we have been running workshops and other events in Dublin and beyond. In case you are interested our next event will be this Saturday in Collins Barracks, you can find the details here. Smirkybec (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, at Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]