Rupples

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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_creepTalk 14:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Happy Holidays (Merry Christmas)

DankJae 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.

DankJae 21:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Ruddle Road Halt railway station

Hi @Rupples, just thought I would update you that I have corrected the link for the article to the correct line and added two new sources. Interestingly, Bradshaws Guide actually mentions on page 68 the halt so I think that is quite a useful source and another book. Hopefully I have addressed your concerns you mentioned for it. The last bit about agriculture I cannot find a source. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Fantastic job…

on Pelsall! KJP1 (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Entries 50 and 60

Good morning. Are you okay finalising Ryders Hayes and Stubber's Green-with-the-Bog? Then we just wait for the PRODs/AfDs. I was a little dismayed to see that Burnley BUA has been re-listed for the third time! There will never be consensus as the KEEP / DELETE positions are very firmly entrenched, and neither wants MERGE as a compromise. What to do? KJP1 (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

p.s. I think we should do entirely new articles on the picturesque hamlet of Stubbers Green-in-the-Bog, and its even smaller neighbour, Stubbers Green-without-the-Bog. If there aren't such places, there should be. KJP1 (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@KJP1 Yes - Stubbers Green Bog does have a certain ring to it! Might be able to squeeze in a mention of Dumble Derry Farm. Stubber's Green hamlet has been obliterated, unlike Leighswood (or Leigh's Wood) which developed into a residential/commercial suburb of Aldridge. Need to see how much content there is. Not altogether ruling out a merge somewhere after expansion, but it's not an obvious fit elsehere. OK with finalising Ryders Hayes. The Burnley BUA AfD needs to run its course and if no consensus will default to keep, but the closer will take into account the strength of the arguments in addition to the !votes, so it's not clear cut. Rupples (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @KJP1, long time, no speak! I've just come across some recently created articles on what appear to be obscure settlements, namely Bishton and Shenstone Woodend both in Staffordshire. They remind me of the kind of settlement articles created by DragonofBatley we were looking at earlier this year (some of which were also in Staffordshire). The creator of these articles is also one of the few contributors to Stubber's Green. Should we be concerned? Rupples (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Rupples - if I had to guess, I would say that likely is DoB. The article similarities are striking - non-notable / East Midlands location / weakly sourced / reads like a local gazetteer / obsession with bus routes. And the joining date fits. Should we ask them? KJP1 (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

A quick scan of the 100+ articles they’ve created since joining in April suggests it’s a near certainty. KJP1 (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I've raised a sockpuppet investigation. KJP1 (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Think you've done the right thing @KJP1. Contemplated raising the issue myself but doubt set in and I was away on Sunday. Did wonder whether it could possibly be a new editor creating articles by copying the style and content of existing hamlet articles, so held off. I'll keep an eye on the investigation and may chip in. Thanks for taking a look. Rupples (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

That was a good spot. Now there are just the 112 articles they created. Sigh...... KJP1 (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

KJP1, the few articles I've looked at so far don't appear to have the blatant failed verification sourcing we previously identified, but some sources are subpar. The articles on populated places would probably pass WP:NPLACE but some hamlets would likely be better placed in the appropriate parish article. I'll take a look at these. On the other hand (no pun intended!), not sure if all the articles have to be speedy deleted for being created by a sockpuppet. Rupples (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I've tagged King's Bromley (parish) for speedy deletion under G5. I believe all the parish articles that have the same name as the settlement they relate to ought to be deleted per User:Crouch, Swale/Civil parishes/Splits missing parishes project guidelines. Being cautious so only tagged this one for now to see what happens. Rupples (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Further G5s required for Alrewas (parish), Hints (parish), Burntwood (parish), Cheadle (parish), Biddulph (parish), Leek (parish), Kidsgrove (parish), Gnosall (parish), Fazeley (parish), Blithfield (parish), Shenstone (parish), Hammerwich (parish), Wall (parish), Longdon (parish), Colwich (parish). Need to revise related settlement article's Lead, Infobox and Categories. Rupples (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the position is that they should go as sock-created. And looking at TLL's article creation page, [1], I see they've all been G5'd, presumably with some automated tool. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Clarification of minor misunderstanding

Thank you for contributing to a discussion.

I'm reaching out to you personally to make a small point regarding a misunderstanding (which is obviously my fault as you weren't the only one to misunderstand my intended point).

I just realized that I have a habit, maybe even a bad habit. I sometimes construct responses starting with a minor point and moving on to a major point. That approach has an obvious flaw in that some readers will focus on the minor point and never get to the major point.

The major point is how to characterize an edit I made to a reference. I covered this in some detail in my long response but I just wanted to add a little more detail to the minor point.

@JMF:'s edit summary was:

(Undid revision 1316835228 by Sphilbrick (talk) if your bot is creating silly titles like that, it faulty or you aren't reviy. Do it right or don't do it at all)

If JMF had written "if the bot you used ..." instead of "if your bot..." I wouldn't have started my response by clarifying that I didn't create the bot. It appears that you and others thought I was disavowing responsibility for the edit.

I'm not.

I didn't want anyone to think that the tool I was using something I created. It's a great tool, and it would be highly inappropriate to leave the impression that it was my work.

With that said, while this incident started out on the wrong foot am very happy that it happened. It has force me to do some serious thinking about why human civilization uses references, and how those references should be constructed in a world in which many sources are online. In that context, I think the edit I made which I take responsibility was an improvement over the bare URL, although short of following the arbitrary convention for reference structure. JMF argues I should "Do it right or not it all". I think improvement qualifies as an improvement and is better than not doing anything at all. JMF's position is an odd position to take, given the Wikipedia ethos embodied in Perfection is not required. YMMV S Philbrick(Talk) 13:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick, I've changed the Bald eagle "Wayback Machine" cite you highlighted, so one of the 2,000 odd citations has been improved! It's strange, but the one on Massachusetts isn't even an archived link. I often convert bare urls to formatted citations so that's why I've taken an interest in the discussion. JMF's talk page is on my watchlist from discussions we've had on other topics. See what you mean regarding "your bot". Presumably, it's the bare weblink conversion tool you're using? I take your point on improvement. Good you're trying to take a positive from this. Rupples (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank-you for that improvement.

Yes, I'm using the bare link conversion tool. It's very frustrating and obviously not the fault of the tool, that it can't be used inside a template which means citations inside info boxes, and as part of any list that has been formatted into columns don't work. That sounds like an easy fix but maybe not. It also doesn't generally work on PDFs, which is also a pain because that means they need to be done manually. I get why it's challenging but it's frustrating because it seems like it ought to be easier. I sometimes click on the convert button, knowing that it's probably going to tell me you can't do the conversion but it then has a button to "add manually".

To my surprise, in some cases it worked. I've only done a few hundred but it seems that if the tool detects a PDF and can find it in the Internet archive it decides to make a link. It doesn't know how to pick the right article title which apparently bothers some people but I think a working link that's easy to add is better than not doing anything at all. If someone like you wants to go the extra mile and tracked down the best option for title, I applaud you, but there are still over 16,000 articles with a URLs remaining, and I'm trying to knock off some of the easier ones. When the conversion tool gives me a working link in five seconds, I view that as progress. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)