User talk:Grutness

Please add new discussions at the bottom of the page!

I've moved earlier discussions to archive pages (as listed below). A few of the items I've simply got rid of - if I have, it's simply that it was trivial and/or stuff which has been dealt with, and is therefore no longer relevant. The deletion is not a reflection of my opinion of the writers!

Archives

10/04-01/05	02/05	03-04/05	04-05/05
05/05	06/05	07/05: 1	07/05: 2
08/05	09/05: 1	09/05: 2	10/05
11/05	12/05	01/06	02/06
03-04/06	05-06/06	07-08/06	09-10/06
11-12/06	01/07	02-03/07	04-05/07
06/07	07-08/07	09-10/07	11-12/07
01-02/08	03-04/08	05/08	06-07/08
08-09/08	10/08	11-12/08	01/09
02-03/09	04-05/09	06-07/09	08/09-6 Jan 10
01-06/10	07-11/10	12/10-02/11	03-12/11
2012	01-06/13	07-12/13	2014
2015	2016	01-09/2017	10-12/2017
01-06/2018	07-12/2018	2019	2020
2021	2022	2023	2024
2025*	*	*	*

* = still to archive

Good article reassessment for Whitwell, Isle of Wight

Whitwell, Isle of Wight has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy admin anniversary!!!

20 years? Wow. That's dedication there!! Have a cookie.

(Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 16:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Grutness...wha? 01:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Grutness a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

P.S. I am so sorry for the lateness! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Grutness...wha? 09:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Bombardment of Greytown article

Hello, Grutness,

In late 2024, I expanded someone else’s Start-class article called Bombardment of Greytown,  which, after some changes by Donner60 and others, was declared a B Level article by Hawkeye7. In the course of the run-up to that B level bestowment, I had received, thanks to my watchlist, no less than 13 email notifications alerting me to changes made, ending on 7 December 2024.

Having received the B Level imprimatur and having ceased to receive any more email alerts as to further activity, I assumed no more changes were being made. But, recently, I glanced at the article, and I noticed substantial additions have been made to it in 2025 by History1138 and a warning template added to the top by you that said, “This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. etc.” Again, my watchlist never alerted me that any of this was happening. Hence, my delay in reaching out to you. (I will also be contacting History1138 soon.)

I looked at the description of what can cause tone problems in an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Tone) and did not see how I might have violated this cautionary. Perhaps you could point out some examples in the piece of such failings. I would also like to know if you can shed any light on how that template was added and those additions made to the article without my watchlist having alerted me by email. I’m guessing it was just some sort of pilot-error on the part of a first-timer. Will-DubDub (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Will-DubDub: The main problem is parts like "An obscure and seemingly minor incident in which no one was killed or even injured, this event has had a secret history, hidden — until now — for over a hundred years. And it has had a major impact on American foreign policy for almost as long." It reads like the sort of thing you'd find in clickbait. It may be accurate, but it's not a very encyclopaedic way of putting it - better something more neutral like "Although this incident was minor, it had a major impact on American foreign policy." Reading theough it again, most of it is a good article, but that bit in particular stood out as a red light.

As to the reason why you didn't get alerted, I've no idea - someone over at the WP:Village Pump might be able to answer that one. Grutness...wha? 02:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Grutness,

Upon reflection, I think you’re absolutely right about that line, and I just changed it to your suggested alternative.

You have inspired me to seek higher rating levels, including Feature status!

I will check with Village Pump about why my watchlist didn’t inform me of the changes.

Speaking of changes, I’m going to ask Historyguy1138 to remove most of his additions. I think they slow down unnecessarily the run up to the titular incident and make an already long and complicated piece even more so. Also, one line, “Solon Borland . . . was forced to resign,” is incorrect. Borland was severely reprimanded by Secretary of State Marcy and, in a fit of pique, then resigned. “Whether or not Marcy’s note was actually intended to induce Borland’s resignation,” James Woods has written, “it had that effect.” (See Borland’s letter of resignation here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=txu.059172149398109&seq=439. He was so angry with Marcy that he sent it over his head, directly to President Pierce.) Will-DubDub (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

All the best with improving the article! And with finding out what is going on with the notifications! Grutness...wha? 02:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Hope to start improving on it right away and finding out what’s going on with those notifications! I’ve also been in contact with Historyguy1138, to thrash out some sort of agreement with him about his changes to the article. That said, where does that leave you and I with the tone template warning at the top of the article? Has the change I made to that red light passage satisfied your concerns, so that you’d be willing to take the template down once I come to an agreement with Historyguy1138? Will-DubDub (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Done :) Once the problem was fixed you could have removed that yourself, though you were right that it was better to have either the person who put it there or an uninvolved editor do that. Good luck with Historyguy1138 :) Grutness...wha? 23:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Historyguy1138 and I have come to a meeting of the minds over his changes to my B-level expansion of the Bombardment of Greytown.

The changes and additions are now mostly mine, inspired by suggestions from him and approved by him. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Historyguy1138&diff=prev&oldid=1288574147

The bulk of the changes involve my replacing the five initial paragraphs of the Prelude section with five new paragraphs. Then I added four graphs to the end of the article in two new sections: Post Bombardment Central America and Greytown’s Ultimate Fate. (The other changes are much smaller and described in the edit summaries for them.)

Thanks for all your previous help, and I hope you like the changes. I have sent similar notifications to Hawkeye7 and Donner60. Once I’ve heard back from all three of you and resolved any problems you’ve noticed, I am going to embark on an effort to increase the number of images in the article. I will inform you and the others when those additions are complete. Will-DubDub (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Will-DubDub: I didn't have an in-depth read of it, but from what I saw it looks very good. I made one minor alteration, in the capitalisation of the headings, which wasn't in line with the WP Manual of Style. Other than that, good work! Grutness...wha? 03:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I have now added the new images to this article — 22 of them. Thank you for the help with the headings. I have also alerted Hawkeye7, Historyguy1138, and Donner60. Will-DubDub (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

FYI Men can be feminists

I reverted your move of Belizean feminists from Belizean activists to Belizean women activist. Men can be feminists too. ^SMason_Garrison 00:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Smasongarrison: Good point. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::What are you talking about? None of the other categories are parented by women activists. They're connected to women's rights activists. ^SMason_Garrison 01:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I think you must be replying to a deleted message. I double checked and found you were right, hence the change of my message. Grutness...wha? 01:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

No worries! I'm glad we were able to clear it up :) ^SMason_Garrison 02:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Lady in blue

Marie Laufiso do your good things to this Nankai (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Nankai: Heh. I've added some categories - I'll see what else I can find. I've met Pip Laufiso, who I think is Marie's sister (and would borderline be worth an article herself) - it should be possible to get some info to add to the article. Grutness...wha? 15:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah pip got a gong recently Nankai (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia dress code revealed

given the time of day (night) editing gets done the depiction is quite accurate Wikipedia Monument Nankai (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Heh. I'll have you know I'm always very demure and very mindful while I edit, no matter when it is :) Grutness...wha? 01:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Long Island, Bermuda

The article Long Island, Bermuda has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. Small island. Unlikely to find sources due to many islands with similar names. No other language's article has any citations either.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

I would guarantee it took less time to find references than it did to add a prod to this article and notify me. Perhaps you should try something like that next time, especially since verifiable places are never normally deleted. Grutness...wha? 10:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Adding "Bermuda" to the search eliminates most of the "many islands with similar names". PamD 11:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

For your enjoyment

Top 20 Wikipedians by number of edits, from 2002 to 2025

Your username featured in the early years. Enjoy! Schwede66 03:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Cheers! Grutness...wha? 03:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ārai Te Uru Marae

I spoke to the kaiwhakahaere today who told me "the old people always said it as one word" so can we change it back?Nankai (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

^"...so we stick with that." Nankai (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah - OK. Strange, because most websites seem to use the three-word version. Grutness...wha? 07:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

on the above matter their logo uses one word; I guess they get to decide. Unrelated, if your Grutness would be so good to peruse new article Dhargyey Buddhist Centre, pls look out for conflicts of interest ;) Nankai (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

It would look great with an infobox like the one at commons ... I think User:DrThneed has done some workNankai (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The Commons one is built by magic from Wikidata using a template. I added one to the Wikipedia page and entered some info from the Heritage listing. Lovely to have a page for this grand old house, @Nankai! DrThneed (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi @DrThneed and Nankai: Yeah, I'll have a look at that article. I don't know much about the place, though I have visited there a couple of times many years ago. BTW DrT, the reason Nankai comes to me for any mentoring type stuff is I know him through work - I freelance for the newspaper that he's a senior reporter for :) Grutness...wha? 04:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Had a look, did a bit of copyediting and added a couple of lines - it's looking good - excellent work! BTW, if you're looking for another possible Dunedin subject for an article, I was quite surprised there wasn't one on Richard Hudson... Grutness...wha? 05:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Medical doctor v physician

I live in the United States. I have never heard anyone say "I am going to see the physician". People here universally say "I am going to see the doctor." I think per common name we should move everything either to Category:Medical doctor, Category:American medical doctors, etc. or actually to even better reflect common name we should move everything to Category:Doctors (medical); Category:British doctors (medical); Category:French doctors (medical), etc. The common name is not "medical doctor" it is clearly in modern English everywhere "doctor" but since doctor has multiple other meanings, it would be very confusing to use just doctor, but since medical is not part of the common name I think it would most reflect the actual common name to use Doctor (medical). There is the issue that in Britain there are "physicians", but they are a subset of doctors (medical) and not used as a synonym, but I think common use even in the US is such that American doctors (medical) or American medical doctors is the best name for even that category. There are some use differences, but no American would find the proposed name confusing, or even unexpected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Makes some sense, but what are they known as collectively in the United States? If they're called physicians rather than doctors, then the usual system (used in probably thousands of categories across Wikipedia) would be to use local usage, even if it varies from nation to nation (see, for instance, the categories for soccer/football/association football). Which is how they are now. If you think the American categories need changing, then propose them instead. "Doctors (medical)" might clear up the mess, but it would be better to run that past any connected WikiProjects before a mass renaming proposal. Grutness...wha? 13:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a distinction, at least historically in the UK, between physicians and surgeons, which is why some consultants are referred to as Dr Xyz and others as Mr/Ms Xyz. See https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/patient-care/surgical-staff-and-regulation/qualifications-of-a-surgeon/#Why PamD 14:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Grutness...wha? 14:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Ted Bullmore

Thanks so much again for your help. You will always be the person who saved Ted from playing Ruby to me. cheers.

Manymanydogs (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hah! No problem :) Grutness...wha? 01:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 00:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you! 21 years? How is that possible? Grutness...wha? 00:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, Grutness, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Grutness...wha? 16:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, Grutness, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk me 16:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Grutness...wha? 16:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Guide to temporary accounts

Hello, Grutness. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

• Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

NZ editor survey and strategy

Kia ora, Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand are hoping to learn more about Wikimedians in Aotearoa through a quick, anonymous survey, and your response would be greatly appreciated. We're also welcoming community feedback on developing our strategic plan to see us through to 2030. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of List of city and town nicknames in New Zealand for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of city and town nicknames in New Zealand is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of city and town nicknames in New Zealand until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Grutness. Thank you for your work on Autosexual. Another editor, Tony Holkham, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

There may be a contradiction in the lead, as autosexuality is not mentioned in the article on the asexual spectrum. The article needs expansion with some reliable sources, but clearly describes the subject in a nutshell.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Tony Holkham}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Tony Holkham: - yes, I created the page... twenty years ago, as a redirect to Autosexuality (which is itself now a redirect to Autoeroticism). I didn't write any of the current text. You'd be better off talking to the person who turned the redirect into an actual article last week, User:DarknessGoth777. Please check the page history before raising queries with editors who have nothing to do with the problems! Grutness...wha? 14:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, will try to - but the review process sends the message to the first editor on the history list, as well as putting it on the talk page of the article for any interested editor to see. Cheers, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry about getting annoyed! Grutness...wha? 03:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Crown Range

An article that you have created (Crown Range) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Crown Range Road). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Mrastron (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

Hello Grutness: Enjoy the holiday season, have a happy New Year, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ―Panamitsu (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

• 
  pōhutukawa
• 
  Totaranui

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:User:Panamitsu/NZChristmasGreeting}} to send this message

Thank you @Panamitsu: A merry Christmas and a great 2026 to you, too! Grutness...wha? 06:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year! (2026)

Alexeyevitch^(talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, 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 New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I randomly remembered that you were the only Wikipedian I added a New Year's message to last year, so I might as well do it again. Either way, Happy New Year to you. :-) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 13:01, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Alexeyevitch:! Already 1/1/26 here... hope you have a great new year too! Grutness...wha? 14:16, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Women's Bay, Barbados

The article Women's Bay, Barbados has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Found mentions, but no in-depth content.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. JoeNMLC (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Moved it to its correct name Woman's Bay, and added a couple of easily found references. The previous references were removed by someone at some point. Grutness...wha? 02:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Manawatū Plains for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Manawatū Plains is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manawatū Plains until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

4meter4 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started (2)

Hi Grutness. Thank you for your work on Woodhaugh Gardens. Another editor, Kingsacrificer, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

You have referenced the same source multiple times, creating a new entry each time. Please find a way to reuse one source in multiple places.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Kingsacrificer}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Kingsacrificer (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Kingsacrificer: Yes, I started that page - 13 years ago, as a redirect. The person who turned it into an article and did the multiple referencing is User:Smithandjosh. I will remedy the references, however. Grutness...wha? 11:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The tool sent my message to you as the creator, I suppose. Thanks for taking it up either way. Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Lake Reporoa

Is only currently mentioned and named in en:wikipedia in the article Reporoa Caldera so why remove Category:Former lakes of New Zealand ? ChaseKiwi (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Because the redirect Lake Reporoa is already in that category, as I discovered after adding it to Reporoa Caldera (and then reverting myself). Grutness...wha? 02:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, no expert on categorisation rules. ChaseKiwi (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thank you! Grutness...wha?

Terminating vistas

What is a terminating vista (re the category Category:Terminating vistas in India)?RegentsPark (comment) 17:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Terminating vista Schwede66 18:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks! RegentsPark (comment) 18:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Cheers Schwede66 - beat me to it! Grutness...wha? 01:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Players of United States of America

The article Players of United States of America has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced; no sources that this team even existed.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

It took ten seconds on Google to find sources that the team existed. It would have been far more worth your while doing that than spending a lot longer prodding the article and contacting me. BTW, it already had a couple of sources, so...Grutness...wha? 11:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for being such great admins for this site! (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Phlogiston Enthusiast: Thank you! Grutness...wha? 01:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

The Catlins

Hello, are you still interested in this article? I don't believe it is up to FA quality and issues brought up on the talk page have not been addressed. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Haven't looked at it in years! I'll have a look at the talk page queries. Grutness...wha? 02:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Dunedin club

Hi Grutness, I am part of a Wikipedia club that meets at Otago University weekly on Fridays. It is led by User:DrThneed (Tamsin), who is a librarian at the Central Library. This week we will be meeting on Thursday since it is Good Friday. Here is our page. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought you will be interested since you live in the Dunedin area. Andykatib (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'll try to get along to some of the meetings. Unfortunately I often work Fridays and tend to keep odd hours, but I'll see what can do. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Grutness, no worries. Take care and have a good weekend. Andykatib (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Port Chalmers Maritime Museum for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Port Chalmers Maritime Museum is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port Chalmers Maritime Museum until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Traumnovelle (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

New article draft for Panasonic camera

Hi Grutness, I see that you are interested in photography and have a lot of experience creating new articles here on Wikipedia. I was hoping you would be willing to help me with the draft that I've been working on for the Panasonic LUMIX S1II here. I think my draft covers all the relevant facts and is in line with the articles for similar cameras, but because I have a conflict of interest, I understand that a neutral editor should move the draft to main space. I'd appreciate you reviewing and cleaning up where you see fit. Thanks for your time. LRGino (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but it won't be tonight (it's 1am here in NZ!) Grutness...wha? 13:06, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Grutness, thanks so much! Let me know if you have any questions. LRGino (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mount Charles (Antarctica)

The article Mount Charles (Antarctica) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Stub that is just a copy of the GNIS entry, has never been expanded in over 10 years

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Articles that are "simply copies of GNIS entries" are very easy to find on Wikipedia. There are hundreds, if not thousands of them. In many cases, they are the only online source, but contain significant encyclopedic information. It would be very rae for them to be expanded further. Grutness...wha?

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 June 14 § Category:Individual perching birds

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 June 14 § Category:Individual perching birds on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mclay1 (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Île de la Lande moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Île de la Lande. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has no sources. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade: The rules on Wikipedia must have changed. This is no different from the several thousand geographical stubs which I have started over the last 20 years. The article used information from the French-language Wikipedia, where there are references, with a hatnote asking for expansion. Such article-for-translation requests usually regard references on the foreign-language article as sufficient. In any case, most people find it is far simper to add a reference than to go through the process of draftifying an article. If you find an article with no references, please consider doing that first. The article is now back in mainspace. Grutness...wha? 04:48, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The article has been unsourced for ten nine days. Given the supposed ease of adding sources and your long history of creating articles, why haven't you sourced the article? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade: Family emergency. My wife has terminal cancer and was in hospital. If you look you will see that I did very little editing at all over the last few days (102 edits in the last nine days - about 10% of what I normally do). I see someone removed the reference I posted about half an hour after I added it. I've added some more. BTW, since the article was only created nine days ago, how could it have been unsourced for 10 days? As it was, I added references as soon as I got your message - it took two minutes. BTW, revoking my user rights is extremely heavy-handed, and seems in complete violation of WP:AGF, and disingenuous given your seemingly arbitrary mention of "three references" - which in neither policy nor guideline. Other that the article under discussion, all of the last six had references, and four of them had multiple references. Grutness...wha? 15:52, 19 July 2026 (UTC)[edited 16:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)]

I'm sorry to hear about your wife. I have personal experience with close members of my family going through treatment for stage IV cancer, so I greatly empathize.

I also apologize for the calculation error about the number of days. I thought today was July 20, not 19. Regardless leaving an article unsourced for nine days is not what I would expect from an autopatrolled creator.

That said, Looking back to February 2021, you have created 50 articles (to my count), not including redirects or DABs. Of those 50, 4 were unsourced, 12 had 1 source, and 11 had 2. Even if we ignore the 3+ argument (which is often held up at AFD), 16 of your last 50 articles created failed to meet N as they did not have "multiple" sources, which is policy.

I would not expect someone who is autopatrolled to be creating articles where at least 50 percent have questionable notability and about a third do not meet the standard of having multiple sources. Many may meet NGEO even with fewer than three sources, but this list also included BLPs and other non-place articles. If you disagree with my assessment, I'm happy to have someone look it over. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

To quote WP:N - There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. "Generally expected" is not the same as "mandatory". WP:N goes on to say In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. I feel that I have done that. It further says Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. As such, small number of references does not mean an article "failed to meet N". Please be aware of what a policy or guideline actually says before you run with it. Grutness...wha? 03:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright, so change my wording from failed to meet N to failed to establish or demonstrate N. As such, these articles may not have been patrolled by NPP without improvement. Thus, the AP user right does not make sense. Again, you are free to request that another administrator review whether you should have the autopatrol user right. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

In most of the 16 instances you cite, however, notability was established, despite only having one set of references. Very few of the new articles failed to establish notability. And if you, or anyone else, feel that I have not added sufficient references for an article, I would expect you (or them) to again follow WP:N and If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: Ask the article's creator. In this particular instance, rather than asking me, you simply boilerplated me and moved the article to draft. Not friendly, not appropriate. Grutness...wha? 03:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I concur, Significa liberdade. Boilerplating an editor who has been around since soon after Wikipedia was set up is inappropriate. It’s not something that I would ever do. If there’s an issue, bring it up and see where a discussion leads to. Revoking autopatrolled feels heavy-handed. Schwede66 05:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

This thread came up on my watchlist, so let me see if I can be helpful here. Perhaps I am missing some part of the discussion, so let me ask @Significa liberdade: did you raise any concerns with Grutness about his article-creations or editing prior to revoking the userright? I understand that as a new-page patroller you want to ensure that articles are properly sourced, but having such a discussion first would seem appropriate in the case of any good-faith editor, let alone one with Grutness's tenure. I'm curious whether there was a reason that didn't happen in this instance. The point is not that long-time editors are exempt from standards; it is that there was every reason to expect it would be fruitful to discuss first what you perceive current standards are, whether in fact they are not being met, and how Grutness would respond to your observations. For that matter, I'm not seeing where Grutness was actually told of the revocation even after the fact, other than in a log summary (but again, I'm open to the possibility I'm missing something). Grutness, to your observation that the rules on Wikipedia must have changed, I think it is fair to say that expectations on sourcing have indeed increased over the years. I anticipate that the outcome of this discussion will be a restoration of your userright, but including an extra source or two up front in new articles might be a sensible adjustment to make. And of course I join in the sympathy for your family health issue, and SL's as well. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Thanks for your input. To answer a couple of your queries, my first contact with Significa liberdade was her boilerplate telling me that the article had been draftified, and I only found out about the rights revocation through the log summary (and I can see no direct mention of it in her comments to me, though maybe I've overlooked it. As it was, I added a reference as soon as she brought it to my attention — s I would hve done if she'd just asked or queried it with me, as I implied above. And thank you — and SL — for your comments on Joy's health. Grutness...wha? 16:12, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Schwede66: When I draftified the article, I did not take the time to look into who the editor was. While reviewing articles for NPR, I came across an article that had been unsourced for over a week, so I used the MoveToDraft script to move to draftspace (a recommended practice in NPP, regardless of who the editor is). You are free to restore the user right, but personally, if Grutness came to PERM asking for it today (without it previously having it), he would likely be denied. This is not a user right that personally benefits the editor in any way, which is why I didn't find it necessary to discuss. You're correct that I may have erred in that sense. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

It was certainly helpful while I was working more regularly than I am now, and often creating around 100 stub articles per day, something which might happen again. Now, it simply seems like a hefty downgrading in status and a psychological loss of significant honour within the Wikipedian community. I am not ashamed to say that it kept me awake most of last night. Oh, and FWIW, when I did WP:NPP work for a few years, I always checked whether the editor was experienced or a newbie. It makes a huge difference as to how the article's future is handled. Grutness...wha? 16:19, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Adding to this, my concern is not that Grutness cannot respond to queries. Sure, if I said, "Please add more sources to these articles," he likely would do so. However, that goes against the purpose of the autopatrol user right. Editors receive no benefit from the user right, with the sole purpose to help with the backlog. As I stated, Grutness has created about 50 actual articles in the past five years, about half of which I found contained issues at the time he stopped working on them. This is not what I would expect from an autopatrolled editor. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll also note that looking at the talk page above, Grutness has been notified of potential deletion for his articles multiple times. Sometimes, the articles are merged, sometimes sources are added. Commonly, Grutness's response is to tell the editor who informed them that that editor should have taken the time to improve the article. Again, this is not what I would expect from an AP editor; their articles should be good enough when they stop working on them. That said, I accept the criticism regarding my communication. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

...and you're automatically assuming that I was the articles' creator. Sigh. I have been arguably the busiest member of WP:WSS. As such I have edited and stub-sorted literally tens of thousands of articles that were no more than two or three lines long. It's inevitable that I get notified when these are prodded or sent to AFD, since often all editors who have been involved in the editing of articles are notified. It doesn't mean that I started them — but it means I often end up sourcing references for them. In plenty of other cases, I created a page as a redirect, and someone else has later created an article from it. In those cases, probably numbering in the hundreds, I created the page but not the article, but still get notified. See, for example, here and here. Grutness...wha? 17:22, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I was looking at the current deletion notifications on your talk page, all of which appear to be for articles you created.

• You created Mount Charles (Antarctica) in 2014, and it was PRODed as a GNIS copy without sourcing beyond GNIS. GNIS is of questionable reliability regarding notability. You dePRODed, but you didn't improve the article.
• You created Port Chalmers Maritime Museum in March 2025, and it was later merged per consensus. You had sourced it almost entirely from primary sources.
• You created Players of United States of America as an unsourced stub in September 2021, and it was still unsourced in March 2026, when it was PRODed by 331dot. You dePRODed it with the edit summary, Bollocks. Plenty of sources that the team existed. Try <https://stats.acscricket.com/Records/First_Class/Overall/Players/Oldest_Players.html> to start with. Sure, 331dot could have looked for sources, but you should have added them upon creation as a seasoned content creator. However, 331dot tagged it for notability concerns with the edit summary, when I marked with PROD, there were no sources provided. Now, no sources about the team itself, just team members.
• You created Manawatū Plains in 2004, and it was AfD'ed this year, at which point it was completely unsourced. I won't hold this 22-year-old article against you, though, especially since sources were added at it was kept.
• You created Woman's Bay in 2006, and it was PRODed this year by JoeNMLC. At the time of PRODing, it had zero sources. This is another 20-year-old article, so I won't hold you to current standards when it was created. You dePRODed and added some sources.
• You created List of city and town nicknames in New Zealand in 2017, and it was AFD'ed to speedy keep, so I won't hold it against you.
• You created Long Island, Bermuda in 2005, and it was PRODed in 2025 by Bearian. In Bearian's rationale, they stated, Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. Small island. Unlikely to find sources due to many islands with similar names. No other language's article has any citations either. This reads to me like they spent time looking for sources to improve the article. You dePRODed and added some sources, which is fine. However, you also did not AGF in responding to Bearian on your TP, writing, I would guarantee it took less time to find references than it did to add a prod to this article and notify me. Perhaps you should try something like that next time, especially since verifiable places are never normally deleted. Perhaps Bearian erred, but this is quite a snippy, non-AGF response, and isn't AGF what you were originally asking for here?

Before you make claims that you didn't create the pages being nominated for deletion (and thus, ABF), I recommend you actually look at the notices on your talk page to ensure that what you're saying is accurate. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

(outdent) I am indeed inclined to restore the userright, but will leave this thread open for a short while longer in case any other admins are seeing this converation and wish to weigh in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

For the record, I concur with restoring AP. I see that I assigned it to Grutness some years ago. I assessed editors for AP for several years, so I'm well aware of what it is, Significa liberdade. Schwede66 18:27, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps Grutness's article creations were better prior to 30 June 2022, when you granted the user right. Again, I'm fine if you choose to reinstate the user right, but I recommend that you evaluate Gruntness's recent work the same as you would any other editor who applies for it at PERM. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I make a good effort to search for reliable sources, but sometimes I miss things. I've never been accused of being perfect. I'm always happy when someone proves me wrong about a prod and rescues an article. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

oookaay.

• I created Mount Charles (Antarctica) from a GNIS article. That is common practice and is usually all the referencing that is needed. Being an unexpanded stub for 10 years is not normally a rationale for prodding.
• I created Long Island, Bermuda — which is the only "Long Island" in Bermuda. Bearian and I have known each other on Wikipedia for a long time. A little banter is not a denial of good faith. Apologies if it was not seen as such.
• I created Port Chalmers Maritime Museum, and sourced it largely from local newspapers.
• I acknowledge fault on the Players of United States of America article.

BTW - you say I have started only 50 new articles since 2021? Are you including the former redirects that I expanded into articles? Grutness...wha? 05:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

It looks like further back-and-forth between the two of you isn't likely to be helpful. I'll take care of the permissions restoration in the morning (don't want to do it on mobile). Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for the restoring! Grutness...wha? 05:51, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

As a response:

• Creating an article from GNIS may be common practice, but at AFD, GNIS is often not considered a reliable source for establishing NGEO. This may have been a bad PROD, but the article still needs additional sources.
• On March 4, 2025, Port Chalmers Maritime Museum had six sources, four of which were from the museum.
• I did not include articles you started from redirects, so there will be errors there. I looked through contributions and filtered for new article creations, then ignored DABs and redirects. Perhaps the articles created from redirects are better.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Let. it. go. Six prods, of which you accept that four could be given the benefit of doubt, over the last 18 months. Grutness...wha? 12:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

As per the discussion above, I have restored your "autopatrolled" status. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Grutness...wha? 15:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Mass media in Zaporizhzhia

A tag has been placed on Category:Mass media in Zaporizhzhia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)