Alexeyevitch

ArbCom case request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#An admin advising another user to deliberately introduce errors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for arbitration declined

The request for arbitration in which you were named as a party has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. Arbitrators generally expressed the view that this incident on its own did not yet require arbitration and could have likely been resolved at AN/I. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 16:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization of templates

Can I ask what you are doing with edits like [1], [2] and [3]? Template titles—like article titles—will act the same whether the first letter is capitalised or not. These edits are unnecessary and give the appearance of edit-farming. Your edit count is meaningless, and it is a waste of your valuable time to pursue edits by quantity, rather than quality (see WP:EDITCOUNT, or WP:COUNTITIS).

In case you do pursue edits like this—although I have no clue why you would—can you at least make sure to mark them as minor edits? — HTGS (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

A few other people also give the appearance of edit-farming IMO. Quality edits, not quantity edits is totally correct. Fixing minor formatting errors are still good contributions to the encyclopedia.

See WP:SDFORMAT - short desc should start with a capital letter (capitalization). Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What HTGS is saying is that those edits are superfluous. If you do them while doing other edits to an article, that makes it an incidental edit and that's fine. If that's the only edit to an article, then it's pointless as it does not change anything anywhere. Schwede66 05:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

OK. Let's just keep in mind that it is how it should be stylized. But editing an article just to capitalize the first letter is pointless. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting WP:SDFORMAT. It is saying that the description itself should start with a capital letter, not the template name. E.g. at Kurangaituku, 'Supernatural' should start with a capital (which it does). It doesn't matter whether the template name starts with a capital or not. For example, in the mentions of templates and examples of use at Wikipedia:Citation templates, they are written with a capital in some instances, and without in many other instances. Nurg (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh... okay. I acknowledge that. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Alexeyevitch. You have been making useful changes and additions elsewhere, so I genuinely mean it when I say I would rather see you spend your time doing stuff that’s more valuable. If the templates ever get to the point where they need to be capitalised we can build a bot to do that ;) — HTGS (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you everyone! Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Colored pencil

Hello, just dropping by to tell you that that article has {{Use British English}}, so colour is indeed the right spelling. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC) My bad, I stand corrected. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

:The IP added the template simply because they wanted to. And the article title is American English so it's awkward having the content in British English. Also this article was written using American English and it should be kept without consensus. (See WP:ENGVAR) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Request

Hiya,

I see you've dealt with Roger 8 Roger and his agenda before. Would you mind taking a look at the talk page for Colony of New Zealand? I've started a discussion there and he is making things difficult, to say the least. Dhantegge (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that page is on my watchlist. I will comment there later this evening. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a look at the essay Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It says "editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions". I'm not in any way trying to pick on this editor or be rude - I don't know him at all - but I do think the arguments he has made are eurocentric at best, and his comments about "Māori elites" are troubling. But hey - I'm a relatively new editor, and I don't want to lose whatever moral high ground I might have. So I think I'll leave it for now. Dhantegge (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Foveaux Strait

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Foveaux Strait you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Foveaux Strait

The article Foveaux Strait you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Foveaux Strait for comments about the article, and Talk:Foveaux Strait/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Ka pai @Alexeyevitch! David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 18:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both, I appreciate it. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I also want to acknowledge Marshelec's contributions to the article, ka pai. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:GARC: Invitation to review 2024 Sugar Bowl

Hello Alexeyevitch, You have been paired at good article review circles to review 2024 Sugar Bowl. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #8.

PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Opawa

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Opawa you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TechnoSquirrel69 -- TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Meetup

Don't know what will happen at the meetup; whether it's entirely social or we'll get into editing. I'll bring my laptop along. Schwede66 08:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I'll also bring my laptop. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Most Australian articles

Have Use Australian English date=April 2014 (or whatever date) - so your edit at Hobart was reverted. If you able to ascertain that a particular usage is verifiable/clarifiable - the edit summary of correct might be for some usages, but in general the Australian usage is programme. Thanks. JarrahTree 08:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Per its talk page: This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party). Australian articles should be written Australian English. Hence why I think "program" is correct. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

hahah - thats funny, I was sure we hadnt americanised... oh well... sorry to have bothered... JarrahTree 11:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Spelling

Hi there. Can you please not get into edit wars about spelling. Articles about NZ subjects are generally understood to be in NZ English even if they don't have the "use NZ English" flag. See MOS:TIES for more info. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Daveosaurus, I hope you are still in the middle of writing the same to Traumnovelle’s talk page. The responsibility to avoid edit wars falls on both parties. — HTGS (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to add a corresponding note yourself if you wish. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not sure what to do now. I'm aware both spellings are acceptable for New Zealand English. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

If in doubt, leave a note on the talk page and ask for guidance. It doesn't really matter which word is used (the meaning is obvious in context) but rapid-fire reverts of uncontentious edits just annoy people. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

If both spellings are acceptable, then the appropriate thing to do is tap the sign that says MOS:RETAIN and move on to more interesting arguments. Editors who truly wish to litigate out which spelling is “correct” should probably do so at MOS:SPELLING, which to my dismay does not list spelled/spelt, etc. I would take its absence from the list as weak evidence that both forms are acceptable.

Edit wars are easiest to avoid when WP:BRD is followed. I see no version of this (silly) dispute in which Alexeyevitch is more deserving of calling out than @Traumnovelle. — HTGS (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It only takes one editor to stop edit warring, and of these two I have found Alexeyevitch more amenable to an appeal to common sense. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with the 'burnt/learnt' spelling but editors should be aware of MOS:RETAIN. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Except one spelling is not acceptable, despite the OR casuistry to justify it because the editor dislikes NZ/British spelling. I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to correct spelling mistakes. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Yet again, back in the day it made a lot more sense to use 'burnt/spelt' and so on when this was a British colony and many publications used this spelling but now sources tend to use both spellings. Hence why there is no preferred spelling on New Zealand-related articles. Regardless of what OED says, it's clear 'burned/spelled' have increasingly become more common in recent years. Furthermore, New Zealand has inconsistencies with these spellings e.g. [4] and Beattie 1945. Changing these acceptable spellings is a breach of MOS:RETAIN. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Cherrypicking a bunch of misspellings means nothing. The contemporary Herald is littered with spelling errors. A tertiary source is what should be relied on in this instance not your OR. MOS:RETAIN refers to English varieties not correcting a spelling of the existing variety. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Lets keep these spellings as is since both spellings are acceptable. I'll be mindful of MOS:RETAIN. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

According to which source is it acceptable? Traumnovelle (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Huh, it's unclear what you mean. There are many sources which indacates that both spellings are used. The spelling in the New Zealand publications might differ between who is writting the content and prehaps when was it published.

This discussion is getting really repetitive. To put it simply, both spellings are acceptable. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

A source that states spelled as being New Zealand English. I don't want you to tell me it is acceptable, I want a reliable source that states it. Traumnovelle (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

No, the '-ed' spellings are found in reliable sources, likewise the '-t' spelling. Changing acceptable spellings is a breach of MOS:RETAIN. Why are you carrying on this discussion? It's clear that both spellings are used in NZ. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

For example, it's acceptable to say: McDougall learned te reo Māori.[5]

And, 650 hectares was burned.[6]

And, It's European name is spelled incorrectly. [7]

Inconsistent spellings include The Press articles: burned through 650 hectares also the 2024 Port Hills fire burnt native bush [8]

And, I’ve learnt that people...[9]

And, An officer knelt...[10] Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Just read a reliable source which has more of this carry-on. [11]

• Riccarton is Putaringamotu, and it is spelled such to the present day. p. 102
• Deep Creek was known to Māori as Pari-haka. This name can be spelt in quite a variety of ways... p. 37

(sigh) It's really confusing, but it seems like both are used. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I question whether the talk page for @Alexeyevitch is the appropriate place to discuss this.

It feels to me like we need some proper guidelines on what counts as NZ English to resolve all doubt. Could this subject perhaps be taken to RfC or the WPNZ noticeboard or something similar? We could determine a consensus and create clear guidance about what we consider acceptable NZ English. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

We could inform this to other Wikipedians or take this to RfC. It seems that Gadfium and Traumnovelle made some valid points below and I think my point (which is that '-ed' are just as valid as '-t' in New Zealand English) are OK. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cloventt. I've summarized what I think of it on NZWNB. I notice that both spellings are acceptable and authors may have preference on which spelling to use in a New Zealand-related articles. Keep the spelling the primary author(s) use in the article (e.g. Whanganui or wētā). Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Three dictionaries

• Heinemann New Zealand Dictionary, 1979. Page 1054: "spell (1) verb) (spelt or spelled, spelling)..."
• The Dictionary of New Zealand English, Oxford, 1997. This does not include words without a specific New Zealand connection. It includes on page 764-5 three definitions of spell: "a period of rest from work"; "one of the periods into which a game of rugby football is divided; a 'half'"; "to rest". Also an entry for spelling, the resting of animals. No mention of how letters are put together to form words, as this doesn't differ in NZ to other countries.
• The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993. Volume 2, pages 2977-8. Numerous definitions, but the appropriate one is "spell /spεl/ v.² Pa. t. & pple spelled; spelt /spelt/...". This is not specific to New Zealand.-Gadfium (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I've got an Oxford dictionary which lists just spelt. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It would be more useful if you could name and date the dictionary you are using. The Heinemann NZ Dictionary is the most relevant of the ones I have given, since it is about New Zealand English. I have now also checked the full Oxford English Dictionary 1989, ed 2, volume 16, page 188, which among many pages dealing with other meanings of 'spell' includes the exact same beginning at the New Shorter Oxford does, vis: "spell /spεl/ v.² Pa. t. & pple spelled; spelt /spelt/...". It also includes four entries for "spelt" on pages 190-91, but three of these are related to a grain, the husking of it, or a thin piece of wood or metal which is related to the grain, perhaps because it looks similar. The fourth is an obsolete term for 'spalt', a hard stone used in solder (p 100). At this point I have exhausted the contents of my bookshelf on the matter.-Gadfium (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

New Zealand English dictionary 2005. Includes international spellings for terms but only has an entry for spelt (as in the past participle of spell) and no entry for spelled. I'll have a look at some other dictionaries too. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Look at the entry for 'spell', which should give the past tense(s), probably with the abbreviation 'pa. t.'.-Gadfium (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Has both with spelt listed first. The entry for colour also includes color for example but there is no separate entry for it, analyse has analyze listed as a form but the entry is analyse. So it appears to include international definitions within a definition. Will try and scope out some other ones I have laying around. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

That's very helpful. I wasn't aware of these dictionaries. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

See also the NZOED, on someone else's blog who looked it up: [12] New Zealand Oxford English dictionary doesn’t give us a general rule for which one to use, either. It has 'learned or learnt', 'Burnt or burned' and 'Spelt or spelled'. — HTGS (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The Reed Dictionary of New Zealand English has just spelt for the sense of spelling a word. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I think sources may differ on what they consider as "correct". As I've mentioned above, some New Zealand authors will use the '-ed' spellings while other authors might use the '-t' spelling. This might also apply to New Zealand English dictionaries. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Opawa

The article Opawa you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Opawa for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TechnoSquirrel69 -- TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Southshore, New Zealand

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Southshore, New Zealand you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Voorts -- Voorts (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Anti vandalism efforts

Thank you for reverting that vandalism. You were quicker than me! Cmrc23 (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Southshore, New Zealand

The article Southshore, New Zealand you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Southshore, New Zealand for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Voorts -- Voorts (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:GARC: Invitation to review Victor N. J. Jones

Hello Alexeyevitch, You have been paired at good article review circles to review Victor N. J. Jones. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #15.

GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Shuah Khan

Hi Alexeyevitch, I'm trying to add an article on Shuah Khan, she is a prominent linux kernel developer. Can you help? Thanks. AbdulRahim2002 (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Opawa

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Opawa you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DimensionalFusion -- DimensionalFusion (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Opawa

The article Opawa you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Opawa for comments about the article, and Talk:Opawa/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DimensionalFusion -- DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

"Unreliable" tag

Hi @Alexeyevitch, I noticed that you placed the Template:Unreliable sources in the source code of the Canterbury (National Provincial Championship) article. May I ask why? If it's because the references contain instagram posts as sources, then in these particular cases they are not "unreliable sources". The instagram posts have been posted by Canterbury Rugby and contain their own team line-ups. "Sources about themselves" are permitted if they meet the criteria in WP:RS, which they do in this article, but I'm not sure whether the use of instagram posts as sources is your reason for placing the tag. Maybe you've done that for another reason? I'd be keen to know! Ruggalicious (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. The article relies on these sources, not ideal. Also, who writes content on The Highlanders website, and what makes it a reliable source. It's better to use Template:Self-published (for now). Let me know if you have any other questions. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but I disagree a) that the article relies on these sources. Only a few additions of players to the "Current squad" section rely on these instagram posts from Canterbury Rugby (only four instagram posts in total), not the entire article or even the entire section. And b), the use of this template will categorize the article/section of the article into the "Category:Articles lacking reliable references". I think, in this case, that's nonsense. The instagram posts contain objective facts (a list of names of players), not opinions or statements. I think some flexibility is in order here. Finally, this section is by its very nature temporary as there will be a new squad in nine or ten months time. I think there's enough reason not to include any template relating to sources at all. Ruggalicious (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok. You can remove the template if you want. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Etymology

Hello, I'm at an impasse (very nearly an edit war) with the anonymous user at Etymology, who I seem to be unable to reason with. I see you reverted their recent edit. Would you be willing to participate in the discussion at that talk page? (My apologies in advance that it's gotten so long.) Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I felt the previous revison was a better description of it. I also removed an unneeded dismabiguation wlink. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 20:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Alexeyevitch! I'm glad that you are joining the November 2024 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

Cielquiparle (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)