User talk:Alexeyevitch/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Book publishers

Kia ora! Just dropping a line to suggest enabling CS1 errors reporting on your account. For example, if a user misses a field such as the "publisher" but includes the publication-place, it will create an inline maintenance notice. These are disabled by default and require the addition of some CSS to your user profile. These issues are usually really minor and easy to fix as part of copyediting an article.

Btw, your improvements to Cashmere, New Zealand are awesome, thanks for the mahi. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, at the moment I am prioritizing getting the Southshore artice up to GA status, I found book sources about the suburb and found the Māori history of the area really interesting... would you be interested in reviewing this article soon? Marshelec might peer-review it this week. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yup I'll try to find some time to read up on it. Looks like a reference check will require getting some books out of the library, so it might take longer than the Aoraki article took. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 06:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Good... I will do a bit more copyediting this week. I'll consider catching up with Marshelec and what his thoughts on the article are. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I had a quick glance over it and yes some copyediting is definitely required. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Ideally I would be done with the article by the end of this week. I need to do a bit of photography in the suburb and upload some images onto the article itself. Marshelec is considering peer-reviewing it soon... he may be able to provide some suggestions for copyediting. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that Marshelec provided some suggestions to me via email to me a few days ago... his suggestions were very helpful like adding a notable people section. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

En dashes in phone numbers?

Why is it necessary to use en-dashes in phone numbers? You a phone number in this reference and I can't figure out why. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Dead link replacement

What was wrong with the dead link I replaced? I am happy for any hint. I am new to Wikipedia and have to learn more about it. Thanks, Matho22 Matho22 (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it was a blog link, I provided you with some supportive links on your talk page. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Two barnstars for you!

		The Multiple Barnstar
		Fantastic work expanding and copyediting the Opawa article among numerous others! And great job on defending articles from vandalism and disruptive/inaccurate edits too! — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that. :-) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Today you've replaced about five or so New Zealand spellings with American ones. These are incorrect, and judging by your talk page, you know that.

This is disruptive and a waste of my time as I have to go through your contributions to find them. After spending dozens of hours getting consistent spelling throughout all New Zealand articles, it frustrates me to see that you're undoing my work.

I'm not sure why you have a thing for spelling, but please stop. You are welcome to use your preferred spelling in talk pages, but not in articles with national ties. ―Panamitsu (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Schwede66 00:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Controversy here and at Mount Rushmore

Alex,

You deleted notable information about a well-known American controversy, by deleting edits in the body of the page and in the lede which were quoting the page's existing information and sources.

In that the controversy information is already included in the body of the page, but deleted from the lede is not how ledes work in Wikipedia.

Your reason said the edits were not needed in the lede. I'll add that that is/was your opinion.

I guess I need to expend the effort to educate you about Mount Rushmore. Most Americans know about the controversy, but an editor wouldn't if that editor was not from the US, or aware of its history.

In 1980, the US courts ruled in favor of the Lakota Sioux's case against the US government, regarding the gov's theft of the Black Hills in South Dakota, in 1870.

Huge case, huge ruling, a really big win by Native Americans in US history.

The Lakota Sioux did not accept the monetary settlement, as detailed in the page. You can read the information on the page and learn these details.

At minimum, the lede does not treat the positions of each party in this controversy (owner v. trespasser) equally. Nor should it, since the ruling was in favor of the land's lawful owner.

Instead, the lede almost gushes (my opinion) the position of the trespasser, with a miniscule mention of the lawful owner in (brackets).

The numerous sources not already included on the page would further explain why Mount Rushmore is a controversy beyond the fact that the land was stolen, or "illegally taken". Beyond the issue of theft, the owner is additionally affronted since the colossal monument is at their front door; it depicts four presidents whose terms coincide with the genocide of Native American peoples; and it is sited in the Six Grandfathers which are revered within Lakota spiritual philosophy.

You could see it as a quadruple punch : the theft, the overt entry location, the celebration of genocide, the agressive disregard for spiritual practices.

Maybe now the controversy is better understood and you can now accept the fact that the controversy is ongoing, and is highly notable, and needs to be included in the lede -ESPECIALLY since the controversy itself is already detailed in the page, and ledes are meant to incapsulate the most notable information.

There's a Talk topic on the page where you can also edit, or ask more questions. I'll gladly provide the sources if you can't find them yourself.

Let's work to build a accurate encyclopedia. Ok? 49.126.35.101 (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the Lakota Sioux have not accepted the monetary settlement because they want the Black Hills returned to them, and they do not want money for the land that they have no intention of selling. 49.126.35.101 (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not me, it's you

This is the third time you have commented on my talk page despite me asking you not to. Because of your tone when you commented on my talk page I looked at your overall contribution pattern and noted that you have a very strong and repetitive pattern of reverting edits on articles especially where you feel you "own" the article. Additionally you were cited in a wikihounding report where it very much seemed you were the aggressor. You also seem to personalise editing interactions on Wikipedia, and it would seem your recent comment on my talk page is part of that pattern of behaviour. I guess you felt compelled to comment as I reverted a reversion you had done on the Opawa article. I explained the reason for reversion. If you want to write articles that no-one else edits you should blog. There are free options at Wordpress.

I commented on Mt Rushmore as I felt the editor had a valid point. There is a significant land ownership dispute that should be addressed up front. As an editor I would have expected that you look at those contributions and readjust the lead so that the land dispute is higher than the number of tourists that visit. I linked to the wikihounding report as I think it shows your pattern of behaviour. Apart from your sense of ownership of article you often do a full scale revert without looking at the overall article and re-crafting it into something better. A large number of edits doesn't mean good editing or good writing. Rushing off to cite the rules is a thing you are good at but you are often stuck on literal adherence to the rule rather than the spirit or intention of the rule.

You are very apologetic when called out on your behaviour but you drop back into those patterns of personalising edit interactions very quickly. It's Matariki, take time to reflect on your behaviour.

And remember, you came to my talk page, repeatedly, after being asked not to. Shortly after you had been cited in a wikihounding report. It's not me, it's you.

Goldenbaybutcher (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)