User talk:Rupples

Invitation

Hello Rupples, we need experienced volunteers.

New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Farhansnigdho

Hello! I'm Farhansnigdho☺️

I hope this message finds you well. I sincerely thank you for your recent contribution. I'm fortunate to have had the opportunity to learn from you.

-- Farhansnigdho (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion

I started a deletion discussion since you are unsure if the article meets notability and because the notability GNG tag remains on the article. The tag can be removed depending on the outcome of the discussion. You are invited to comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.G.S. colony Ben Azura (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben Azura. No problem. I view taking this to AfD positively, in that someone might unearth additional sources. My thinking is that the estate may have been notable when first built, but it's difficult to find online sources from that era (1950s) for India. Rupples (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Lundy retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from AlexandraAVX

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vörehult. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Hares

The source you provided is talking about Lepus timidus, not the supposed breed of domestic rabbit. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle You're right, I failed to spot the difference between Swedish hare in the book and Swedish Hare in the article title. I still think AfD is the better option than straight delete, but thanks for pointing this out. Meow! Rupples (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm required to do the AfD but I'll go ahead and do it, just noticed my textbook has an appendix with rabbit breeds so I'll check that first. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why I think AfD is better is that it gives editors a bit more time to come up with sources not easily found online or they may have access to offline sources. It may generate wider participation and consideration of WP:Alternatives to deletion. I see you've opened an AfD — that's good. Rupples (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PROD removal

Hi there, it doesn't really make sense to me to remove a PROD tag with a rationale that starts with "Probably not notable" and suggest a redirect for the title "Privilege (insurance company)". Who is going to be searching and including parenthesis? Just seems a waste of time to now have to go to AfD to me. AusLondonder (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder. If the reason for the PROD is based on notability, I may but not always look for an appropriate AtD. A redirect does make sense to me when the trading/brand name is mentioned in the suggested redirect target. Why not go ahead with the redirect to Direct Line Group? On the other hand, if an AfD is your preference, fine. I do tend to suggest AfD in my edit summary when removing a PROD where I believe opening one is a good option, but didn't do so here. Rupples (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Island House, Birmingham

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

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed. Rupples (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024

Hello Rupples, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!.

scope_creep^Talk 14:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Scope creep, that's made my day! I reciprocate your warm wishes. Rupples (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays (Merry Christmas)

Dank Jae is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Dank Jae 21:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DankJae. Best wishes to you this festive season and throughout 2025. Rupples (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Village, Shropshire

I think this one is even more obvious than the others. I've put a further four "Failed verification" tags on, and flagged it on DoB's Talkpage, but I think it likely this will have to be escalated. KJP1 (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geez @KJP1 - the article has just been reviewed, though not sure exactly what that entails. Bewildered by use of the statutory instrument citation! Cite no. 3 (parish website) seems OK - it confirms what's written, does omit "parts of Lawley", but perhaps the intention is to list wikilinked settlements and Lawley doesn't appear to have an article. Rupples (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't actually see where the local newsletter - ok in itself - actually mentioned Spring Village. Lots of others, yes, but not that one. But it is very long so I could have missed it. The Statutory instrument is just nonsense. It dates from 1956 and is being used to support claims about the development of the village from the 1960s/70s. I'm also unsure what the review process actually does. Basically, I think DoB's desire to have these articles, the notability of which are repeatedly being questioned - see his Talkpage - outweighs any concerns about source integrity. Which is worrying, given the volume of such articles he's creating. He's not replied to my direct question, although he is editing today, and I doubt he will. He didn't respond to the last two. KJP1 (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @KJP1 you're absolutely right re source no. 3, I've completely misread it, doesn't mention Spring Village AFAICS. Rupples (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Know why I got muddled - it does appear on the map as within Horsehay here: https://www.dawley-hamlets.org/sites/default/files/uploads/dawleyhamletshorsehayparishward.pdf Rupples (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Me (DragonofBatley). Thank you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DoB

Morning Rupples - I know we've not got a decision yet from ANI but I knocked this up in anticipation, User:KJP1/sandbox10-DoB. It's just to keep a running record of which articles have been reviewed and what decision was made. I'm also keeping a note of any general issues that come up. I very much appreciate your having a look at some of those on railway stations. Could you make a note in the sandbox of the ones you've looked at and the decision reached, so that we don't end up covering the same ground. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1. Completed no.419 Ecton railway station. Is this the sort of comment you're looking for? Rupples (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! I might stick an NFA on the end as a "summary" but that's just what we need. Now the other thing we need is to get DragonofBatley involved in the reviewing. But for that, I think we need Voorts to Close the ANI with a decision. KJP1 (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Not sure exactly how to involve Dragon. Perhaps allocate a number of articles spread between the three main topics for self-review and then a second pair of eyes to point out any inadequacies that remain or confirm NFA. Rupples (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]