User talk:Grutness/archive50

This file is an archive - please do not add new discussion here - add it to my Talk page

DYK for Whakamana Cannabis Museum

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Peaked at 2000. Grutness...wha? 12:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Stubadub

Hi you deleted the page recently (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stubadub) and would like to know under what reason did you do so. The page is in reference to a Twitch streamer that is doing moderately well on the site. (this artical is not about the person himself but the channel itself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bighalo2 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The streamer is decidedly not notable - there doesn't seem to be any evidence for anything remotely encyclopedic online. Google returns only 700 hits for Stubadub, and most of them are either mis-spellings of the band Stubbadub (which is also not notable) or for a piece of software. Whether the article was about a real person or not, it was still not one which should be in Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 09:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Dam

Hi Grutness! I notice you have moved Dam (rural Australia) to Dam (agricultural reservoir). This is not an improvement for two reasons:

• Apart from the "home dam", which is used for non-drinking uses at the homestead, dams are not a feature of agricultural properties — more the province of pastoral properties, where they serve the vital purpose of keeping the stock alive.
• America, where the greatest number of Wikipedia users live, and has a far greater agricultural sector than Australia and New Zealand, does not know this meaning for the word "dam".

Can you think of a better disambiguation term? Otherwise I propose having this reverted. Cheers, Doug butler (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, when I saw the new article, my immediate thought was that "Australian" was an inappropriate part of the disambiguator, given that it's not a feature confined to that country. Schwede66 21:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I had no idea that it was a peculiarly Australian usage until I was taken to task by a very experienced (American) Wikipedian —

(from my archives): In the article T. J. Richards, "...drowned in a dam while intoxicated..." is difficult for an American to understand. A "dam" is a big solid structure, with water behind it, to an American, not the water that someone could drown in. A translation from the Australian, please, so we all understand. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you suggest a term which would make more sense in the US? Here we use "dam wall" for the structure, which may be of stone and earth, and "dam" to the whole facility, which would maybe cover an acre and a depth of ten feet. I suspect the man knew what he was doing but the inquest spared his family by releasing the finding of accidental death. Doug butler (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Good work with the footnote. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, Doug butler (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doug (and others) - it's not a peculiarly Australian usage, being widely used in New Zealand, some parts of the UK, and South Africa (I think). The reason I used the disambiguator "agricultural reservoir" is because the term "reservoir" is unequivocably about the water rather than the structure itself (unless there is an American usage I don't know of where the term "reservoir" means a dam wall). I've never heard of the term "home dam" - it may be only an American usage. I would disagree with one of your points, though - dams are definitely widely found in agricultural properties, for, as you say, the purpose of keeping stock alive (pastoralism is, after all, just a sub-type of agriculture, and not a very widely used term for it). I'd have no objection to it being moved to Dam (pastoral reservoir), if that would make more sense to Americans. I would note, though, that there are quite a few disambiguators which are confusing to non-Americans, and we manage quite happily with them. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Grutness: You're right that "agriculture" embraces the farming of livestock, but in Australia at least, a "pastoral property" means unimproved grazing land, whereas "agricultural property" usually means cultivated land, for wheat or whatever. "Home dam" was a common expression in Clarendon, South Australia when I was growing up; no way were the cows allowed there! Doug butler (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense - thanks for the clarification! Grutness...wha? 05:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

March 1932 lunar eclipse Rating

I rated the page March 1932 lunar eclipse as a stub and of low importance. 78.148.76.115 (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not sure why you're telling me this, but that looks accurate. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prohibition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bootlegging. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

New Zealander Australians move

If you have reliable sources backing up the use of "New Zealand Australians" as being the correct nomenclature for people of New Zealand descent as Australian citizens, please table these at the article's talk page. There is nothing nonsensical about "New Zealander Australians" (unless you consider that New Zealanders should be changed to New Zealands). I've reverted the article WP:TITLE to the consensus version as it stood.

I'm happy to discuss this further if you can identify an absolute grammatical rule covering the correct and incorrect usage of New Zealander vs. New Zealand. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

New Zealander is a noun-only demonym - the adjectival form is New Zealand. No other article of this type uses a noun form - it's Swedish Americans not Swede Americans, Scottish Australians not Scot Australians, and Danish Canadians not Dane Canadians, for example. Furthermore, New Zealanders in Australia are called New Zealand Australians. To change it back would be incorrect in terms of grammar, usage, and Wikipedia precedent. If you are looking for evidence of difference, I suggest Heinemann's New Zealand dictionary, The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary, The Readers Digest Great Illustrated Dictionary, or the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. I would also suggest you check List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations and the notes on adjectival usage at Wiktionary. By the way, the only reference listed in that article which purports to use the term is the first one, which is referenced six times. Unfortunately, that particular reference doesn't mention New Zealand or New Zealanders at all. Here, however, is an example of the correct term being used: [1], and another, and another... Grutness...wha? 02:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

PS - I've corrected the grammar on the article title again... in line with all other related categories and articles. Since it doesn't seem to have been debated in the past, I don't know where you get the idea that there has been a consensus on it. Given the grammar used by the other articles I mentioned, it seems more likely that any consensus implied is with the correct grammatical form. Grutness...wha?

No, no, there's no need to go into further details. I'd changed it from the incorrect singular form to the incorrect plural form a few months ago as part of a rush job in moving swathes of diasporic ethnic group names to the plural form. To be honest, I hadn't even thought through the permutations of New Zealand in its adjectival form (i.e., I just turned the existing title into the plural form). Cheers for picking up on it and the tidy! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Phew :) S'alright. I was afraid this was going to turn into an argument. Sorry if I got my back up! I've left a message on the article's talk page in case anyone else queries it. Grutness...wha? 03:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I also would have moved this page on sight without further discussion. Schwede66 03:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for making you nervous, Grutness. It isn't good news when experienced, good faith editors start making each other feel edgy. There's more than enough battleground editing to go around. I try not to make my ES and commentary brusque, but it does happen... I'm also aware of the fact that it would have been better to leave the move as was and go straight to the 'discuss' part of WP:BRD rather than reverting.

Sadly, Wikipedia seems to have escalated to being so combative that we're all ready to start lobbing grenades when an owl hoots. I spend so much time editing ARB sanctioned areas that I don't always manage to keep my cool when I should. A pleasure to meet you (and Schwede66). If either of you ever need a third opinion, etc., feel free to ping me. As incongruous as it may sound, I'm actually relatively sane and know my way around WP:PG... and my knowledge of English grammar an' speling an' stuf iz youzhaly usually real, real well good, like! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that - yes, I've spent enough time in editor arguments to be a bit too brusque sometimes myself, so I know what you mean. No harm done. Good to meet you, and yes, I'll keep you in mind if a third opinion's needed. I didn't realise it was possible to stay sane once you started learning all the policies and guidelines! Cheers. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Stubs

The Stubs are bogus; brief the descriptions of cultivars may appear, but there's nothing that could be added beyond a full description of the species, which would be utterly superfluous, and if there were, it hardly needs an invitation. Moreover, the curator of the Longstock collection informs that the latest research at Kew has returned the genus to Buddlejaceae, not Scroph., which was the classification used by Norman in her seminal work on American buddleja. Ptelea (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Even though one curator, no matter how expert, has re-classified a genus, this does not mean that the botanical world in general has done so. In Wikipedia, Category:Buddleja is still regarded as a subcategory of Category:Scrophulariaceae, and until such time as there is a consensus among Wikipedia editors that it should be moved, due to overwhelming support for reclassification among botanists, that is where it should stay - as such, using that particular stub descriptor is appropriate.
• As to the actual use of the stub, let's take an example article: Buddleja davidii 'Blue Horizon'. The article makes no mention of where or when it was first developed other than "recently" (a term to be avoided on Wikipedia) or who introduced it into commerce. It does not say from what variety if was developed as a cultivar (or for that matter whether it was a wild form that was domesticated). It mentions that in 2012 it was not known to have been introduced into North America - outdated information possibly - and makes no mention of whether it is grown elsewhere outside the UK. You so sure nothing could be added beyond a full description of the species? Grutness...wha? 01:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• B. dav.'Blue Horizon'; granted it could remain a stub, but the exception proves the rule. The majority of articles average 100 words exc. refs. and offer all the information the gardener or horticulturist could want: photo, history / origin, biometrics, flower colour, hardiness, and synonyms, if any. Please review 'African Queen' or 'Adokeep' (ADONIS BLUE), or 'Autumn Beauty' etc etc and advise what else you think could usefully be included. By comparison, the esteemed RHS New Encyclopaedia of Plants & Flowers offers fewer than 40 words on the two dav. cvs. featured ('Royal Red' and 'Black Knight'), while the Hilliers' Manual summarizes both in 10.
• Scrophulariaceae, Wiki article: This muddled piece is prefaced by the warning "This article needs a comparison between the current and obsolete circumscriptions of the group, its current composition, and the present location of excluded taxa. None of these issues is adequately dealt with here". Returning Buddleja to Buddlejaceae was not the whim of a collection curator (merely my informant), rather the Royal Botanic Garden Kew. It is interesting to note that the ongoing monumental Flora of China project retains Buddleja in Loganiaceae. See http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=201209 . Regards, Ptelea (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• "The esteemed RHS New Encyclopaedia of Plants & Flowers" may only have fewer than 40 words on the only two davidii cultivars it lists, and Hilliers' Manual may only have room for a handful of words. As print volumes, they are no doubt restricted by space. Their lack of coverage doesn't mean that no more information is available - if it did, why do we have over 100 davidii cultivar articles in Wikipedia? They surely exist, and we have information on them, yet neither of those volumes says anything about them at all. Clearly, those two esteemed volumes don't say everything there is to say about those cultivars. Neither, currently, do we. Perhaps casting your eye on this article might convince you that our are still stubs. Or maybe this one. If you prefer things to be spelled out, though: African Queen - from which varieties pf Buddleja Davidii was is cultivated? Is it hybridised in any way? It is "widely cultivated" where? Apparently it's grown in the UK, and presumably in the Netherlands, but where else? How hardy is it? Does it prefer specific soil types? When does it flower and for how long? Adokeep - where does the name come from? Who gave it the alternative name of Adonis Blue? Is it cultivated anywhere outside the UK? Again, does it prefer specific conditions, and if so what? Is there any reason why it is so much smaller than most buddlejas, perhaps from its origins? Autumn Beauty - what other possible taxonomies have been suggested for it and why? What types of soil does it prefer? When was it registered? It's a British cultivar grown from Chinese seeds - what variety was the parent Chinese variety? Similar questions can be asked of almost all the buddleja articles.
• Again, if there are problems with the main Scorphulariaceae article, handle them there first. Discuss them with other relevant editors (e.g., WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening), and when consensus has been reached, the changes will or won't be made, depending on the outcome. Don't individually decide that you don't like the way a system is being used on Wikipedia and change some aspects of it on a whim - don't treat the symptoms and let the disease continue.If consensus finds that these are the wrong stubs, then they will be changed accordingly - all of them, along with analogous templates and categories - not just a seemingly random group of them which you have decided to change. Removing the currently accepted standard stub tags from articles which are appropriately tagged is disruptive editing, and your edits have been reverted. Grutness...wha? 10:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for the direction to the Missouri BG Plant Finder page on 'Adokeep' ADONIS BLUE. On first sight, I was truly humbled; a whole page to one plant. Alas, on actually reading it, one discovers 85% of the text is devoted to the species, not the cultivar, the latter accorded just seven lines (fewer words than the Wiki article) relegated to the foot of the page. Not impressed, and heaven forbid that kind of superfluous, sloppy copy-and-paste duplication ever become the standard for Wikipedia. As for the family contention (your comments duly noted) I am indebted to Sminthopsis who has revised the Buddlejaceae page, neatly clarifying the present situation. Again, until such time as the matter is resolved, I'd rather such unsafe classification was not further peddled by your stubs. The articles are indeed short, but that is because ultimately there is little else of relevance to say about cvs. largely raised to satisfy the demand for smaller plants for ever smaller gardens.Ptelea (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Nice of you to cherry-pick one out of the many points I raised without addressing any of the other points, all of which make it clear that there is far more which can be written about these articles. You asked about one article, I suggested many ways that it could be extended. So you said that was perhaps a poor example and mentioned three more - so I pointed out ways in which all of those could be extended. They are clearly stubs, and - as mentioned before - if the appropriate WikiProjects are happy enough with that taxonomy at present, and see no problems with Wikipedia's article and permanent catalogue tree reflecting that taxonomy, then the stub categories automatically follow suit. Sminthopsis's alterations to that one article are useful in clarifying the situation, but they do nothing to extend the change to the hundreds of buddleja articles across Wikipedia - Category:Buddleja is still a subcategory of Category:Scrophulariaceae, and moving it would no doubt affect the work of other botany editors. If you and Sminthopsis between you can convince other Wikipedians in the appropriate botany-related wikiprojects - or by a discussion on article or category talk pages - that the current taxonomy is incorrect, then fair enough. As I said, once permanent categories have been changed, stub categories will follow suit. Until that time, though, stub types should stay as they are - stub categories directly parallel permanent categories, and if Category:Buddleja is a subcategory of Category:Scrophulariaceae, then buddleja should get the equivalent stub type. Resolve that, one way or another, and the stub problem will be solved. Grutness...wha? 12:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Karetai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whalers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uzbek. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

HotCat

I see you are currently doing a lot of category work, but it seems you haven't discovered HotCat. Easy enough to turn it on; much easier to then do category work. I only discovered over the weekend while helping some newbies that it isn't enabled by default. Schwede66 07:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Cheers - I have used it in the past, but I use an ancient browser and it's caused a few problems in the past. I'll have to try it again see whether any of the bugs have been ironed out :) Grutness...wha? 08:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Ha! It looks like it works fine now - thanks! Grutness...wha? 08:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

HSF RFC

Request for comment on Hard science fiction edit history --Tim (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Dunedin Study

Hi, friend! It's a while since you added anything to the Dunedin Study (which should be a redirect because outside organisations use that phrase). Maybe you're interested in incorporating some of http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/80402120/dunedin-providing-the-data-that-could-shape-humanitys-future - including maybe a sentence about the 11-year-old potential psychotics and the quote "... most of everything that happens to older people is related to how they lived their lives as young people and what happened to them when children and what kind of start they got."

I'm out of practice at proper WP citing and formatting, though I might add something more to the NZ wikia article.

Kind regards

Robin Patterson (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Sadly I don't have much time right now for much WP related... will try to add something when things in the real world calm down a bit! Grutness...wha? 14:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of countries by southernmost point, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cabo de Santa Maria and Hai'an. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Nelson, New Zealand geography stubs has been nominated for discussion

Category:Nelson, New Zealand geography stubs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ~ Rob^Talk 15:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ashington, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Berwick and Blyth. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Merging stub cats/templates

See this discussion. To avoid rehashing old territory, I just wanted to make sure I have the "how" of this correct before I do it. Since these regions have actually been merged in reality, this would be a situation where the stub sorters would consider it appropriate to actually merge the templates rather than just changing the category, correct? Would template redirects work to merge in {{NordPasdeCalais-railstation-stub}} as I typically would do, or is there a technical reason we should be manually replacing each template? Thanks! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

In this case, yes, since the regions have been merged there's enough reason to use template redirects from the former names to a new {{NordPasdeCalais-railstation-stub}}. It would have the advantage that if France decides to go back to the former divisions (unlikely, but possible), many of the stubs would already be appropriately marked. This isn't a standard stub upmerging (e.g., if the stub categories for Picardy and Nord-Pas-de-Calais had simply been too small, but the places themselves continued to exist), which would have seen the former templates remain. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought; thanks for confirming! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Curse you!

You got me interested in stub sorting, not that I needed another editing interest on my plate. I've set up an extra bit of tracking at Category:Stub categories needing attention under the U anchor which automatically populates with any stub categories that are potentially undersized (less than 50 pages). These won't all need maintenance, since some may be containers for other large categories, but many of them will. I'm going through them and seeing where AWB could feasibly be used to move articles to more specific stub categories from the more general ones. I suspect we'll also find a good number of genuinely bad stub categories in there. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Heh - I must admit I'd pretty much given up on stub sorting a couple of years ago, but I've found myself drifting back into it. It's addictive. Automated monitoring of undersized categories sounds like a great idea... another useful tool to mention on WP:WSS! Grutness...wha? 01:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way, does Category:1936 Winter Olympics stubs look like a candidate for an upmerge to you? I checked the Category:1936 Winter Olympics category tree and there's no more population to be done unless we start throwing the competitors in there as well. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Possibly - you're right that there doesn't seem like much room for expansion. Grutness...wha? 02:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Why would competitors not be part of that stub category, given that this is further down in the category tree? Schwede66 02:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

They would be in a subcategory... if there are enough of them, though, it might save the stub category. Grutness...wha? 03:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Winter Olympic medalist stubs is the same "depth" as the 1936-specific stub category; one below the general "Winter Games" category. In my opinion, it makes more sense to keep them there. Otherwise, we'll see a proliferation of by-year stub templates and categories which largely overlap, since competitors in some sports often compete in more than one olympics. We don't currently have any 1936-specific competitor stub template, so we'd need to create and populate that as well. Seems like a lot of work for not much gain. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

and IIRC the usual way to split them is by country rather than year - which makes sense, because a lot of them would have gone to more than one olympics. Grutness...wha? 06:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposing stub categories/templates

What's the general procedure, usually? I'm aware of WP:WSS/P, but it doesn't seem to get much traffic and there's only been a couple dozen proposals since April 2015, which seems extraordinarily low. Are stub templates/categories regularly created outside that process? Do I take no response as affirmation? Not sure what the "norms" are here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

In theory, WSS/P should be used for all proposals, but if the stub types are speediable (as defined at the top of the page) the process page is often bypassed - which is what most stub types seem to be currently, since the system is pretty well established. No response is basically the same as affirmation, since a main purpose of the page is to offer suggestions of modifications to the proposal or to reject any poor suggestions. Grutness...wha? 23:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caiua Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paraná. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Invite to join Stub Improvement WikiProject

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Stub improvement. We work on improving stub articles on Wikipedia to above stub status quality. If you are interested in joining, please feel free to visit the Project Page!. Thank You. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 18:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm probably spending too much time working on Wikipedia as it is! Grutness...wha? 01:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Calton Hill, New Zealand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tussock. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neil Collins (broadcaster), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages 4XD and Miss New Zealand. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Grutness. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Grutness.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:1900s-Germany-film-stub

Template:1900s-Germany-film-stub has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Grutness. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

File:PeterTapsellNZ.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PeterTapsellNZ.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of religious slurs page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)