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)[reply]
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).
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.
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. Schwede6605:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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. Schwede6608:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. JarrahTree08:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
For example, it's acceptable to say: McDougall learned te reo Māori.[5]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
@Alexeyevitch, thanks for your help and guidance during the GAN review process! Very excited to have a real GA that I've written from scratch now, and hopefully it makes knowledge about the event more accessible to the general public. Cheers. SunTunnels (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
Thank you for participating in the October 2024 GA backlog drive. Your noteworthy contribution (12 points total) helped reduce the backlog considerably! Here's a token of our appreciation. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you started editing Wikipedia I considered you to be my friend and I always enjoyed working with you. At the time, you were the Wikipedian who I was the closest with. I still don't know why our interactions got sour, and I've realised that it is possible that you may not realise either. Maybe you do, I don't know. Maybe it was some form of miscommunication done by both of us that escalated into something that neither of us wanted.
The way we have interacted with each other is not something that either of us wants, and it is something that cannot continue, otherwise Wikipedia will not be enjoyable. I am truly remorseful for my actions in the past, but my problem is that I don't know what it was I did that upset you, because you didn't communicate that in a way that I understand. I hope that you can also be apologetic, so we can sort out this situation. But don't get me wrong; I still want you to be topic banned from making spelling changes.
I do think that you are a valuable contributor to this project, and I think that if our conflict is resolved we will be useful in some sort of symbiotic relationship, as strange as that sounds. Since we are both interested in Christchurch, it would be a net positive if we collaborated together on those articles without any troubles. I am really interested in the earthquake content, but writing about the non-earthquake stuff really bores me. Maybe we could collaborate on new articles where I do the earthquake stuff, and you do the non-earthquake stuff. ―Panamitsu(talk)01:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Apologies for the delay in getting back to your comment. When I started editing in 2023, I was largely an uncommunicative-shy person and didn't know people were at the core of Wikipedia and thought most content was written years ago, maybe that's part of the reason and I was uninterested in other people, but I've gotten past that. Regarding the topic ban, I'm not opposed to it, I will add a further comment to WP:ANI that you or another New Zealand Wikipedian might give clarification to.
I was surprised no one in 13.5 years created an article for the December 2010 Christchurch earthquake and was pleased to see it created from my end. I would love to see more variety on GAs for WikiProject:New Zealand and there needs to be more people making Wikipedia more comprehensive. A suggestion from me is to use Wikipedia Library to get access to reputable sources from peer-reviewed articles (like this). There is really helpful content on Wikipedia Library that could assist when your editing articles.
I think most New Zealand Wikipedians noticed this conflict over the past year and would also like to see it resolved since they both consider us two valuable contributors to Wikipedia. New Zealand topics need more coverage on Wikipedia and it's great to see more editors editing these pages. Christchurch is a fascinating city with a long history and there is still work to document it on Wikipedia. I noticed Mike will start a similar project relating to the Port Hills and Banks Peninsula. Alexeyevitch(talk)02:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that our personal conflict could get resolved and I am excited to collaborate with you. I hope if that tensions between us rise in the future, for whatever reason, that we communicate well in order to prevent it from escalating into something that neither of us wants.
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for good article nomination reviews will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age of nominations reviewed.
Each article review will earn 1 point; for each 90 days an article has been in the backlog, an additional half-point is awarded; one extra point will be awarded for every 2500 total reviewed words.
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
