User talk:Rupples

/Archive 1

Hello, I reverted your recent edit at A82 road as the link as the text is indeed referring to the English Lake District. This is relevant in providing context for the increase in traffic from tourists seeking alternative boating areas due to the aforementioned restrictions in the Lake District. Stroness (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Stroness. Good of you to take the trouble of explaining. Much appreciated. For some reason I didn't grasp the meaning of the sentence as the Lake District is a fair distance from Loch Lomond! Thanks to your explanation I now understand there's a displacement of boating activity from the Lake District to Loch Lomond, so the wikilink's fine. Cheers. Rupples (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No bother @Rupples, glad my explanation made sense! Regards, Stroness (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rupples, I've posted the question to the wider community. You might like to put forward your thoughts? You can find the discussion

Thanks for doing this. I'm not at all certain whether my interpretation is valid so it would be good to see other editors' views. Rupples (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rupples - thanks for your edits - most I see your point and agree. The area on Younghusband and Tibet gave me problems - I tried various things, but I couldn't make it work without a heading of its own. Army life is inactivity and routine, punctuated by periods of violence and bloodshed. The Tibet expedition is the most important event in Bethell's military career - and his personal account of it is itself important, and often quoted in histories of the topic. So - I have restructured the Military Career section with subheadings - I hope you don't find I've overdone it. Take a look and let me know how it works for you now ? Charles.bowyer (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charles.bowyer. Glad the article passed AfD. I'm certainly not going to reverse your subheadings if you feel the article is better served by them. The reason I thought amalgamation was an improvement relates to an article I was editing where an experienced Wikipedia contributor didn't think it was a good idea presentation-wise to have many sub-headings with relatively short amounts of text. I used to think along the same lines as you that it was preferable as one could quickly skip to a section of interest from the Table of contents, but now I'm more inclined to think too many sub-headings breaks readability flow. If, however, you're planning to add further detail under the sub-headings I'd agree with you. It's really just a matter of opinion. Rupples (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I take your point - a difficult balance. I have further expanded some of the Military Career sections now. Charles.bowyer (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I thought that it was the article creator reinserting stuff. But I still think that all the content of this article is eye-wateringly trivial, intended to appeal to those who fetishise the rich and "aristocratic". And it looks like a truly horrible building.TheLongTone (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone. No need to apologise but thank you anyway. You did a fine job removing the off-topic stuff. Infact, your diligence probably helped the article reach no consensus. I thought there was just enough on the history side for a weak keep, and as there doesn't seem to be a current problem with COI editors give it benefit of the doubt. Cheers. Rupples (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bluefrint — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.255.150.126 (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BUAs and BUASDs are a bit of touchy subject for me, which may explain the icy response to your edit. Since Census2011, ONS has been really sloppy in their nomenclature and methodology – and in Census2021 it looks like they are making it worse, not better. Milton Keynes is a good example. First and by definition, MK has always included Bletchley – and Fenny Stratford, Stony Stratford and Wolverton, it is in the New Towns Act designation order. To be fair though, the A5 and A421 do indeed provide clear breaks in the contiguous built-up area, so a BUASD called "Bletchley" is defensible. But what is outrageous is to use the name "Milton Keynes" for a BUASD that consists of the rest of the designated area. And complete lack of consistency: so if the area west of the A5 and south of the A421 is distinct, why is the area east of the A5 and south of the A421 not equally distinct? Or the area west of the A5 and north of the A421 but south of the A422? or ditto but north of the A422 (aka Stony Stratford)?

In the description of Census2021, the ONS says that they are going to follow the OS from now on. Great! But then, it seems, they are going to do no such thing. And they may even abandon BUAs so it will be an OR or SYNTH violation to use them. 🌋 🌋 🌋

rant ends 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, it's becoming increasingly difficult to understand, explain and source population figures. Not just that, do we expect general readers to get to grips with the the language of BUAs and BUASDs. I'm off-wiki for a few days now, but will take a look at the MK situation when back. As far as Bedford is concerned, the infobox side is proving tricky. It uses Template:Infobox UK place where only one population figure field is allowed, unlike Ipswich where Template:Infobox settlement is used and more than one population figure can be used. So having two populations in the Bedford box is scuppered at present. I'll be upfront and say I believe its preferable to use the BUASD figure, but if you feel strongly replace with the BUAD figure. I'm removing the Borough population. Rupples (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth (which is not a great deal IMO but some editors rate it), Citypopulation.de quotes the BUA figure for Bedford. I'd love to know where they found their 2021 figures (which are believable), which suggests someone has "usually reliable sources close to" etc.

Infobox: the -UK-place version is far better because it is reasonably rigorous. The -settlement one is anything but and so attracts all sorts of nonsense. One of our frequent fliers (not being coy, just forgotten the name) has been running a low profile project to replace the latter with the former. So dropping back to the sloppy infobox is not really a satisfactory resolution.

I'm afraid we will have to agree to differ on this one and maybe invite additional input when you get back. But if anyone tried to put the ONS BUASD figure into the infobox for MK, they would get very short shrift indeed. I'm not the only editor from MK who considers it a completely meaningless figure and waste of space as a statistical area. Anyone who wants to do serious analysis goes down to the next level. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And here is another reason to distrust Citypopulation.de. The figure they give for Bedford BUA must actually be the Borough of Bedford, their 2011 figure does not match the RS. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings - I noted you likely are much more of a stakeholder in the Blackpool article - I did make many bold and strident changes - and I documented them as such in the audit trail of the edits -

Sadly, the reversion by @DragonofBatley deleted other more conservative edits - the sizing of the images is the most notably visual loss of quality by these wholesale resets.

As with most matters there is a middle ground and sure - I have no interest in edit wars and I was crystal clear that I did think my edits - pushed the 'consensus boundaries' - but no one reacted negatively - until this day.

I focus on medical and science articles and there is less room for bombast and group think in such articles -

I did actually thing the changes others made - size of images - should be reverted - but I am not getting directly involved.

Kind Regards, Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BeingObjective. Thanks for the alert. We'll see what transpires. Rupples (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - just acting in good faith. Cheers... BeingObjective (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BeingObjective. Hopefully, the commotion has passed. Meant to ask you, what does CLOP mean in your edit summaries? Not come across the term, been trying to work it out but have failed miserably:) Rupples (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I likely use the term incorrectly - but as I use it - I am referring to - Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing - in medical articles is really one step from plagiarism - but copying a big chunk of text - making some word changes, not citing where it was stolen from - oddly, if you take many statements in this article and run a simple g-search - you can find the source articles - we all do this to a degree - again, I am not totally onboard with WP jargon - but this one I recognize from editing many medical journal articles. BeingObjective (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BeingObjective. Ah, thanks for the explanation. One benefit of the mass reversion is the ability to see the combined changes side by side. The wording is improved and I agree with almost all the content that's been removed. There's still more editing required but think I'll leave it for now. Hope to see you around. Rupples (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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
  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]

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]

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]

		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 ]

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

The source you provided is talking about

@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

]

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]