User talk:AllardsGap

How has no one in the last two years greeted you? It's a shame.

Welcome!

Hello AllardsGap, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Melchoir 02:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:William shield memorial tablet.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:William shield memorial tablet.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 15:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi RupertIt. Thanks for your contributions to the encyclopedia. One minor point to note: when adding a reference, you don't need to include the word "See:" - it's implicit in the fact that it's a reference that people should go and "see" it. Keep up the good work! Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple edits

Hi RupertIt. Thanks again for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. A little editing hint for you: rather than making multiple successive small edits to an article, it's preferable to copy the contents of the article to a "sandbox" page, make all your edits there (saving as often as you like, so you don't lose anything), and then copy the finished text back into the "live" article; this avoids clogging the article history with multiple small edits. You can create your own sandbox page by clicking on this link: User:RupertIt/Sandbox. Drop me a line at my talk page if you need any help or further information. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again RupertIt. Can you please use a sandbox rather than making multiple successive small edits to an article? It really does clog up the article history and places extra load on the servers. As before, drop me a line at my talk page if you need any help or further information. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your efforts to get the British land speed record decently sourced, and with more encyclopedic content. When I first stumbled upon that article last September, it was really a mess. Good on 'ya! N2e (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sherwood Egbert

Hi, I welcome your meticulous contributions to some of the Studebaker-related articles which interest me. I wonder if you can tell me the significance of your edit which adds "close=1" to a reflist template. I couldn't find it in the MoS. Also, are you acting on a particular policy about use of the section-heads 'References' vs 'Footnotes'? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just using code found elsewhere on Wikipedia. No, I am not acting on a particular policy. I am providing Footnotes so that is what I call them. There is confusion in Wikipedia between Footnotes and References. I don't normally do References. I am disappointed that User:DavidWBrooks knocked out the link to the Avanti at the beginning of the Studebaker article. Arguably the first modern American car - fibreglass four-seater, disc-brakes, seatbelts, rollbar, supercharger etc. Why are factory closing dates more significant than the cars they made in them? Also the unsupported statement: "Over the next 50 years, the company established an enviable reputation for quality and reliability" is just filler. Rupertlt (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Further thoughts - are we ending up with a mixture of Footnotes and References and do they need separating in some way? Rupertlt (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC) More: I like to use that Footnote code as it uses a small font - on some of my work the Footnotes nearly take up more space than the articles - see Brighton Speed Trials or Firle Hill Climb. Rupertlt (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, see what you mean. Brighton Speed Trials has three separate lots of "Footnotes" using three different formats. I personally prefer one reflist for a single article, and have usually followed the convention described in Inserting a reference which instructs on "the footnotes approach" and says "This section goes toward the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section, and is usually titled "References". One is, of course at liberty to ignore this guideline but I myself would never do so when editing an existing article which has been shaped and accepted by other previous editors. (at least, not without first making some enquiries, say, by discussion at the Village pump. Incidentally, I agree with excluding a single model (Avanti) from the intro. Avanti is fully covered in the article. That model is but one of quite a few ground-breaking designs produced by Studebaker, from its early electric models to, eg, the Starlight body style. Clearly, the intro section is not the place for such specifics. As for the "unsupported" nature of Studebaker's quality and reliability, I could fill several pages with such citations--and will in fact provide at least one for the record. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Brighton Speed Trials has only two different formats - the three columns were added by somebody else. I decided to add footnotes at the end of each table otherwise it would be difficult to follow. I'm no expert on layout. If you think I've erred please edit. I'm in the process of migrating to wikispaces where I can't upset anyone. [1] Rupertlt (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mildred Bruce move

Hi, Rupertlt. I have been adding to the Mildred Bruce page, that you have hitherto done much work on. I intend to move it boldly to "The Hon Mrs Victor Bruce", because that is by far the most common nomenclature I've found. You are welcome to comment, before I do it. MTIA. PeterWD (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems sensible. Trying to research the name Mildred Bruce would prove rather fruitless. It may not be politically correct but adjusting history to suit modern tastes is daft. --Rupertlt (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your rapid response - I'll press ahead now. Never done it before, hopefully will be a successful and useful experience. PeterWD (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To my surprise it succeeded, after I noticed the redirect had history of the reverse move. PeterWD (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette

Hello, Rupertlt. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Automobile Club de l'Ouest. Thank you. --The³5₉ (Talk) 19:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

technical point

R, tiny matter: talk page discussions are easier to follow if you use indenting to keep discussions aligned. You haven't seemed to do it anywhere I've seen you post, so I thought I'd point it out. --Ludwigs2 21:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this means? --Rupertlt (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, for example typing this:

editor X says something
:editor Y responds
::editor X responds to that
:::editor Z reponds
editor Y starts a different idea
:editor Z responds to that

renders as

editor X says something

editor Y responds

editor X responds to that

editor Z reponds

editor Y starts a different idea

editor Z responds to that

Notice how the colons get used to indent the statements so that it's clear who is saying what and who is responding to whom. it's not hard-and-fast, but as a general guideline it helps a lot in reading the page. People will get by if you don't do it, but in long, complex discussions it's a godsend. --Ludwigs2 22:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:European Hill Climb Championship

Hi. I left you a message in Talk:European Hill Climb Championship.Best Regards Rpo.castro (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]