User talk:Arjayay/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

The Companization

Hey A-Y, I have made a translation from a Swedish article. I am a total beginner here, I even do not know if I published or if its only available in my sandbox. The Swedish article is "Företagening" the English version id "The Companization". Can you assist me in how to finish this article? Sorry if I ask you the wrong thing! / Best regards Hans David.Hassle (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi David.Hassle I have no idea why you chose to contact me, as I am not a new article reviewer.
One of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, is create a new article; but people try and do that after only one or two edits; that is like entering a Grand Prix race after 2 driving lessons. Your draft includes multiple WP:External links which we do not allow in the bodytext of articles, but has no WP:references whatsoever.
Please read and follow Help:Your first article and Help:Referencing for beginners.
I have moved the draft to Draft:Companization and added a draft article header which includes a "submit" button, which will add it to the review queue, but please do not submit it until you have resolved these fundamental problems, as it will definitely be rejected - good luck - Arjayay (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking your time Arjayay! David.Hassle (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@David.Hassle:. I created a new article on Haren Prison in January. If you look at the article history you can see that I built it up by looking at what reliable sources said.

Everything I put into the text of the article had the source for it cited next to it. Most of the sources were Dutch-language or French-language. I gave both the actual titles for sources and the translated titles - in a citation template title= is for the real title and trans-title= is for the English-language translation of the title. We need the real title more than we need the translated title. With some quotations I put the original in as notes with a translated quotation in the text.^[1] That way people could correct the translation if I got it wrong. With some prison-management technical terms, it was hard to be sure what the right English technical term was, so I put the term in the source next to what I thought was the right translation. At a later stage of article development, some of these Dutch terms got deleted because there was greater confidence in the English translations.

I found sources by searching Google news using Dutch and French terms, also names of people involved in the project, names of organisations involved in the project. The prison is in Belgium, a bilingual country. And yes, some Walloon-nationalist editors objected to Flemish (Dutch) terms and names in the article.

If you go through the page history you will see lots of features of Wikipedia mark up that are worth learning.

The method I use to edit Wikipedia is Wikitext. There is another method called "Visual", but I have no idea how to use that. I know that there are some bot-like features with advanced editors whose behaviour is not always sensible.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! David.Hassle (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources

An interview is a perfectly valid source. If you and Wikipedia disagree, you're the ones in the wrong not me, and you'd prefer people remain misinformed because of literal pettiness. Systema2000 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

google your username, all you see is arguing with people. you have so many biases and agendas and are just a pain for people. Systema2000 (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Request for guidance

Dear Arjayay,

Just walked through your Wiki profile and I must say it looks so convincing and competent. From articles with varied subjects to barnstars and honors that you received, testify your vast experience.

There are certain subjects and themes which are still untouched on Wikipedia. I conducted ample research on those topics and would really appreciate your kind support and guidance on them (from the creation to editing and retention of Wikipedia pages); thus enabling me to contribute my bit in enhancing the quality and content of this platform. Looking forward to your response.

Thank you!

With Respect, Mike WikiReviewer111 (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Stop being a typical wiki mong, my edit containemd a source. Are you literally blind or something? We both know you just enjoyed deleting someone elses work, because theyre not in your wiki cabal . Get a life, stop reverting peoples legit work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Systema2000 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Yejju

Hello, Why is the damaging of the Yejju page? Have you seen what he/they did there? Completely removed everything there. 2A02:6680:2105:BEB9:F17A:CF7A:32AE:3A42 (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP from Ashdod. I know nothing about the Yejju people, my only contributions to that page were spelling corrections and removing duplicate words. You need to ask User:Abrasax123 why he made the changes - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Arjayay, Hi, you can see this user is speedily making changes on WP:BLP. Chauhan ==> ([2]) related pages and busy to add Rajput as their caste in early life sections without any summary, explanation, or sources. He might be a sock of User:Pranay Chopde and Sanjay Thakur Pawar. His actions are clearly vandalism. 2404:3100:1892:DCB0:1:0:936D:6FAC (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

What exactly did I ruin? The page is originally based off the Yejju Oromo people. Abrasax123 (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, I have already explained my removal. Abrasax123 (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I Dislike

Wikipedia editors creating articles as redirects, which leads to more uses of the same redirects, sometimes back to the article it references, as editors copy the directs in a green link, such as with Reanimated Memories. 86.164.82.88 (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

shakey, I know 86.164.82.88 (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:Redirects are cheap - provided they are not misspelt, of course ;-) - Arjayay (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

How do you make an actual article?

How do you make an actual article? Merv Mat (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I am wondering this too. User:Ryan9878978 — Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article. - Arjayay (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I submitted Get On Your Knees. Merv Mat (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Your /sandbox4 is showing up in "User talk pages with conflict of interest notices"

Hi Arjayay! I came across User:Arjayay/sandbox4 because it has landed itself in Category:User talk pages with conflict of interest notices (link) and showed up as an error in my bot's log. I wanted to reach out to inquire as to that sandbox's purpose? You shouldn't be showing up in that category. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi TheSandDoctor thanks for your post. I have removed that notice, to avoid further confusion. I had posted the notice, in order to modify the text, as the standard template states
"if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI)" which I changed to
"as you have declared that you are Beverley Nambozo Nsengiyunva, you have a clear conflict of interest (COI), so should not be editing our article Beverley Nambozo" - Arjayay (talk) 11:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome & thank you! You could move it to the template namespace if you believe it would be helpful for others. The template namespace doesn't get transcluded into that list. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings!!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Arjayay, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello

Hi @Arjayay how are you doing? Jutos222 (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays

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

Have a look at this. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Perform requested move

Hey there! I want you to move SC de Goa, SC Bengaluru and Mohammedan as it has been seven days since I proposed requested move. Thanks! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 03:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Housefull 5

As you left a message "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" on my published article and redirected it to Film series page. Now reliable sources are available for movie and it's commenced principal photography. Can I or you undo the edit so I can publish the article with updated citations and data? @Arjayay iVickyChoudhary (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi iVickyChoudhary, provided you have, and you cite, a reliable source that confirms principal photography actually has commenced (not just that it was due to commence in December), please feel free to - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Update request

If you can update the box office of Tiger 3 at all the places on its article, that will be great of you. Thanks. 2409:4085:285:EC4F:0:0:1B71:30A4 (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Arjayay, please see this SPI case and revert all disruptive edits made by socks to last good revision of the Ravana Rajputs. Whether after the closure of the case or before, but according to the Wikipedia guidelines against disruption/vandalism by sockfarms.2404:3100:1882:514C:1:0:EEB0:4DC9 (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

We don't act on suspected cases, if proven, the closing admin should address these problems - and I am NOT an admin - Arjayay (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Image removal undoing in article "Middle Belt"

Hi Arjay, please, I inquire to know the reason behind the removal of the image I added to the article "Middle Belt" which someone removed calling it "shitty gallery" and what exactly is unethical about it. Thanks. Kambai Akau (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Kambai Akau - As explained in my deletion, Wikipedia WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES, clearly states "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members" - which is why I deleted your re-addition - Arjayay (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I see! The fellow who took the image off initially was quite rude, giving no explanation but being reckless with his choice of words. I just perused through the discussions and I understand better what the deletion is about. Since a decision has been made already about it, I guess the matter could be put to rest here. Thanks, Arjayay! Kambai Akau (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Your email

Thanks for the emails - I don't mind them, but in this case I think it would be fine to file the accounts at SPI. WP:BEANS can be an issue with some sockmasters, but this one doesn't seem particularly competent, and filing a SPI case makes it easier for lazy people (like me) to tag the accounts and request global locks. Spicy (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

OK Spicy - I just hate telling the socks how they were tracked down - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your edit on the article i created i appreciate your help have a great day. Untether (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The Zamorin page was protected for good, but anonymous IP vandalized it just before the protection applied.

I had requested protection for the Zamorin page because an anonymous user kept vandalizing it, and the protection was granted by admin. But just before it was applied, the anonymous IP made a final edit which reverted the page back to his own version before the Talk Page discussions.

The agreed lead was that the Zamorins were "originally Samantha Eradi chiefs of Eranad", which is what is listed in both sources attached to the sentence.

He has removed that entire paragraph, plus the other edits of other users, and reverted it to his own version.

Would you be able to revert the page to any of the previous versions by any of the other editors before the anonymous IP vandalized it? HölderlinRem1 (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The anonymous IP had been vandalizing other pages too, like the Samantan page, but that was quickly reverted by user Outlander07, who also mentioned that he was a sock puppet of Adithya Kiran. I mentioned the same in the Zamorin page. HölderlinRem1 (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I have responsibly edited the lead section to remove unsourced caste promotion and redundant content.

Talk section is also added for constructive discussion where he is not engaging with references and sources, rather accusing other users who oppose his caste promotions.

It is important to note that his blatant accusations against me have been previously reviewed and dismissed by moderators. I urge you to refrain from repeating these unfounded claims and focus on constructive dialogue to enhance the article’s quality. 2600:4040:4527:3B00:BD5D:7C85:3ABA:7D42 (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why you have contacted me I am not an Admin and I know nothing about the Zamorin. My 2 edits to that page were to correct a spelling error in 2021 and remove a duplicate word in 2013 - you don't need to know about a subject to correct such errors. I see you have both edited the talk page, which is the correct place for such a discussion. - Arjayay (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I have tagged some admins for their view on the page. The anonymous IP keep deleting the origins of the Zamorin, and replacing it with the same "final king committed suicide and burnt himself" line. The fate of one king is not a summary of the article at all, and should not be in the lead. The origins of the dynasty are far more important, and he keep deleting it.

This entire discussion, which has been going on for 2 months, is only because of that 1 sentence: the Zamorin was originally the Samantha Eradi chief of Eranad, before becoming the Zamorin.

Both sources state this, and the anonymous IP himself accepted this, which is how we got to an agreed lead in December 2023.

Now he's back with another anonymous IP, and reverting it back to what it was before the December 2023 discussions. Is that how it's done?

I asked for page protection for this very reason, and it was granted by admin. But the anonymous IP sneaked in a final revert before the protection was applied. HölderlinRem1 (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The requested line has been re-added with sources, so the lead is now complete. Thank you, we can finally close this discussion. HölderlinRem1 (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk page

Shouldn't we remove the forumy and outright racist stuff from this talk page written by the socks? The ones where other users like Sitush and Anupam have replied can be struck off. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Fylindfotberserk 2 of the last 5 edits to that talk page were me deleting inappropriate posts. Having said which, the problem can be defining what exactly is "unacceptable" / "forumy" / "racist", and what is just unsourced PoV, without the editor imposing their own PoV. I am not a fan of deletions, but that page has posts going back to 2014, so archiving it leaving say the last 4 or 5 posts, might help ? - Arjayay (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, archiving might be useful. We can keep this one and the following ones. Posts before those are full of those stuff. Will you do the honors? These people are living in the past, incorrigible, despite a lot of researches coming up. Anyway. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Help help

Hi, I need your help of what is needed to do about List of beauty pageants under the women's pageant the "Sub-major" thing don't have any cited references to justify its authenticity and facts and I just put it there "needed citation"...as I'm still confused about why they put there when I'm a pageant fun my self and even know that theirs no site, news or any book says "Sub-major thing, Major thing there is because of a lot of News known trusted media outlet have verified it and have citation provided., But the Sub-major is quite questionable. Hope you'll help in my behalf. Thank you.Rc ramz (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

2A02:6B66::

I blocked the /64 for the IP you reported here. Hoping that will hold for a while, since the /64s look pretty static, but please feel free to give me a ping if they pop up on this network again. I should be able to turn off the underlying range with next to no collateral. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Blablubbs - as can be seen from the contributions from those ranges, there are almost no other edits. Thanks again - Arjayay (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

User:The Other Karma

Given the concerns being raised by multiple contributors at Talk:Effects of pornography on young people over The Other Karma's poor grasp of the English language, and what I see as the inadequacy of their response, I have started a thread at WP:ANI. You may wish to comment. [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Need an information

@Arjayay hii it's been nice to get touch with you. Can you pleasee pleaseee reply to my 2 questions.

1) can you create Wikipedia article for Bengali actress of India ? &

2) I just want to know that IS CELEBRITY's wiki page is done on their wish like, knowing about their education, personal life where they were born and raised .... Is it first asked from them & done OR wiki editors do it as per their choice ?

AL Creation (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Morton B Panish Wikipedia Entry

Arajay, you removed the edits my father requested because there are no references for them. It's not possible to cite references since these are for the most part personal information added at the time of my mother's death. Since no one has written a biography with this information (and no one is likely to do so) this becomes an impossible Catch-22 for addding any personal information to a biographical page. I have looked at the Wikipedia references about citation requirements, and they would seem to allow these edits as there is absolutely nothing controversial about them. In any case, I have no intention of becoming an expert on contributions to Wikipedia as I have other interests/obligations that take up my time. I have long donated to this cause, but I must admit, this experience is making me reconsider continuing with those donations. Ppanish (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Ppanish, but Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three Core content policies, and this cannot be side-stepped, or overlooked.
Although "You don't need to cite that the sky is blue", most of, if not everything, you added to Morton B. Panish does need citations, from reliable, independent sources. Imagine if you had read something totally false in our article about your father, which had been allowed because "no one has written a biography with this information (and no one is likely to do so)".
As for your past donations, I thank you on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, but whether you donate, or not, does not influence whether you can break the rules, or not. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

What this leads to is a completely 2 dimensional representation of anyone who has not had the advantage of someone writing a full biography (a book, not a Wikipedia entry) on their behalf. That is a disservice to the individual involved, and to the reader interested in the persons background and character development.

You can pass this on to whoever you wish if you think it worthwhile.

Even though this is my father, I'm not interested in dealing with the bureaucracy at Wikimedia to try and get this resolved differently. However I will certainly not look to Wikipedia for anything regarding personal characteristics, or anything biographical for that matter, since Wikimedia's policies ensure an inaccurate representation for anything beyond the most narrow depiction of personality. Ppanish (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, how are you doing?.... Can u please take me through article creation. Jutos222 (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Edits

I hope this message finds you well. I've recently been contributing to the Maryam Kalali page on Wikipedia. I've noticed that some of my edits have been reverted, and I would like to understand more about this so I can improve my contributions. Firstly, I want to express my appreciation for your dedication to maintaining the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia. It's community members like you who make Wikipedia a reliable resource for everyone. I understand that maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia is crucial, and that includes ensuring all edits are well-sourced and comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. To the best of my knowledge, I have tried to adhere to these standards by providing appropriate references and sources. However, since my edits have been reverted, I suspect I might be missing some key aspects of Wikipedia's guidelines or the specific requirements for this article. Could you please provide some specific feedback or guidance on what aspects of my edits did not meet the necessary criteria? This will be incredibly helpful for me to understand where I went wrong and how I can correct it. If there are particular policies or guidelines I should pay more attention to, I would be grateful if you could point me towards them. I am eager to learn and contribute positively to the Wikipedia community. I believe that through constructive dialogue, we can both work towards enhancing the accuracy and quality of the [Article Name] page. Thank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to hearing from you soon and hope we can collaborate effectively to improve this valuable resource. Best regards, 81.106.6.140 (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

As has repeatedly been explained on your talk page, your edits are not from a neutral point of view, including phrases such as "This remarkable blend of artistic, linguistic, and groundbreaking achievements underscores her distinct and progressive persona" "Shahabi's lineage is steeped in history", "Her maternal ancestry is equally illustrious" - these are not encyclopedic language. They may be taken from a source, but cherry-picking comments from a source that uses such promotional phraseology, is not editing from a neutral point of view. This is not just my opinion, User:Discospinster is an administrator, and has reverted your additions 5 times. You are currently in breach of the 3 revert rule which would have led to your being blocked if you had been forewarned about it. I have, therefore, just issued that warning on your talk page. Please read and follow the links in that notice. - Arjayay (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Ilvvia

i get the editor was disruptive and i by no means deserved a barnstar (especially a teamwork barnstar) for switching 2 letters around but no need for this haha [4] Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 23:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dialmayo. If you really want a barnstar from a blocked sock-puppet on your talk page, please feel free to revert my deletion. I removed it as per WP:BANREVERT "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason" - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

wasnt so much about the barnstar as i thought you might've just carpetbombed this guys's contribs, your reasoning makes sense though Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Move request

@Arjayay: Can you please move Category:Quebec Major Junior Hockey League user templates to Category:Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League user templates. This league changed its name this year. I am the creator of this category. Catfurball (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Catfurball to quote the move process:-
"Categories should not be moved without discussion and consensus at either Wikipedia:Categories for discussion or Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy."
You need, therefore, to raise this at either Wikipedia:Categories for discussion or Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

On Meghwal

i want to edit some information in this article Because some information is wrong and it's not suits in it otherwise I will take strict actions on you please kindly be noted thank you 🚫 Zaddy007 (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Zaddy007 - I suggest you remove your threat, before you are blocked - we don't allow threats around here.
You are repeatedly deleting sourced information and adding unsourced claims, which is why your edits have been, and will continue to be, reverted. - Arjayay (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Hi Arjayay, This is a wee thank you for all the work you have done in fixing all my many varied and spurious spelling and grammer mistakes over the last year. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 15:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks scope_creep. It is always nice when the little Wiki Gnomes, like me, are noticed and appreciated. Thanks again - Arjayay (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Osmanabad

Hi, please keep an eye on this article and the problem user? Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Fylindfotberserk - added to my watchlist - Arjayay (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Its vs. It's

I totally understand where you're coming from, but in the case of the movie monster It, IT is a proper name, and the correct possessive would be It's, no different from The Blob's or Godzilla's. Bkatcher (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hyderabad massacres

hello , you said that my stuff wasn't sourced but here am gonna provide all the sources for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyderabad_massacres

sources:

https://muslimmirror.com/eng/the-first-genocide-of-muslims-in-independent-india-is-celebrated-each-year-on-september-17/

The largest concentration of Hyderabadi Muslims is in the old city of Hyderabad. After the Partition of India and the Incorporation of Hyderabad by India, the Muslims of the state lost their privileged status, so significant numbers chose to migrate to other countries such as Pakistan, the Arab States of the Persian Gulf, the United States, UK, Canada and Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyderabadi_Muslims#Demographics_and_distribution

https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=HQCvgavbQjgC&redir_esc=y India's Hyderabadis Abroad 39.43.141.153 (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP from Hazro.
Firstly, please do not put your post in the middle of an existing post, as that damages that post and could well mean that your post is not seen.
New posts should go at the BOTTOM, and have a relevant title.
As for your post, there is no point in putting the sources on my page, they need to be included in the actual article, properly formatted (Please see Help:referencing for beginners) and in the relevant place, beside the text they are supporting. Moreover references need to be from WP:Reliable sources, so please note, Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source, and cannot be used as a reference. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

huh what? , the source you edit , you claim is not reliable. 39.58.148.205 (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Correct, Wikipedia is NOT a WP:Reliable source as is explained at WP:RSPWP - that is one of the problems of being "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." - Arjayay (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

B class copy edits

Hello Arjayay, it's nice to see that you're still keeping an eye on my typo habit. Now I'm semi-retired, I hope to get back to proper article-writing. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

List of Iyengars

On what basis have you reverted the cricketers to the list of iyengars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.224.10 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, as it clearly states, "Please put new posts at the BOTTOM of the page" you had to move the line that states ♦♦♦ Please put new posts at the BOTTOM of the page and include a title set between double == signs ♦♦♦ in order to add your post.
As for your question, as stated in my edit summary your additions were "Unsourced" - you need to provide references to show that these people actually are Iyengars. - Arjayay (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Malda, West Bengal

Sir I haven't add anything from the unsourced data. It is given in Wikipedia only. Check Malda Sadar subdivision page before giving me any allegations. Kalamastra (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

No Kalamastra, your edits were totally unsourced, and included a false edit summary ("Fixed typo" when deleting 599 bytes). Please note that
1) The fact that some information is in a totally different article is of no help to the reader whatsoever - unless they are also a mind-reader.
2) Wikipedia is not a WP:Reliable source in any case, so you cannot just copy information from another page. - Arjayay (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Saving blacklisted sites

I noticed your recent revert here [5]. When I tried to do it, the software complained that about.com was a blacklisted site, so my edit could not be saved. In the past, I've commented out the link when this happens. How did you manage to save the revert? Or did you not get such a message? Thanks. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Willondon - I'm sorry but I can't help - I just did it, and it went through without any messages/problems. I have experienced similar confusion with one of the blacklisted commercial Indian Census sites - I can't revert edits that deleted the site, but some IPs seem able to add that site without a problem. I don't know if server-load is a factor - readding 73kB to Existence of God? - or whether it lets it through after several attempts? - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit revert without reason

Hello, I noticed you have reverted my edit without any reason 45.146.232.41 (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP from Hong Kong, I'm very sorry, I'm not sure what happened there, but I have reverted myself - apologies again - Arjayay (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Lay low vs. lie low

You're making this change citing "sp", but there is no spelling problem here. "Lay low" is perfectly common English. Obviously, "lie low" is fine too if you're writing new content, but "lay low" isn't a problem to be "fixed". Please stop making this change. SnowFire (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi SnowFire - Although "lay low" is common English, lay is a transitive verb, and needs a direct object, whereas lie is a non-transitive verb, so no direct object is required - please see this and other grammatical explanations - misuses do need to be fixed - thank you - Arjayay (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no doubt that from a strict grammatical perspective this is true. However, from a descriptivist standpoint, this doesn't matter. If there's idiomatic use of an irregular phrase, then it's part of the language. And - Wikipedia is by design descriptivist, not prescriptivist, as contained in core policies like WP:RETAIN (in more prescriptivist establishments, it'd say "We use the Chicago Manual of Style, consult it for the answer" or the like, which isn't what happens here). You can argue people are wrong for using it, you can use the "proper" form yourself, but it's not something to "fix" from elsewhere. Anyway, I did a quick check: Merriam Webster lists it as a synonym for "lie low" (so.. agreeing with you in that it thinks "lie low" is the main version, but disagreeing in that it doesn't mark the synonym as slang / irregular). So that's at least one authority that doesn't seem to think it's a problem. SnowFire (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying it is slang, I have clearly stated that, according to the grammar, in some places it is correct, and in others it isn't. I have not been changing the correct usages, just the incorrect. - Arjayay (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

unresearched POV

I provided a statement that 0.0003% of Tasmanians suffer anaphylaxis due to myrmecia pilosula toxin, directly after this I provided the link to view the proof of that statement. This link was the information used in the proposal for the VIT program. This is the opposite of unresearched POV, as it is researched and not a POV at all. Why would you remove fact based statements? I encourage you to read the link, you will need to be able to perform basic percentage calculations. Removing the only evidence based percentages available amid a government funded non-factual narrative is the kind of move that smothers truth. 203.59.212.191 (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Your claim cannot be checked as clicking on the link gives me "The requested article is not currently available on this site.", although you only added it today, which is very strange. Furthermore, we do not allow WP:External links in articles, whilst your statement "you will need to be able to perform basic percentage calculations" may contravene WP:SYNTHESIS - but as I cannot read the article, I cannot tell. - Arjayay (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If you cannot tell why would you assume that the evidence does not exist? Have you checked the rest of the article's percentages for verification? 203.59.212.191 (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Explain how you believe 'Synthesis of published material' applies here 203.59.212.191 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps per country server restrictions are why you cannot access the research. The title of the articles is "Incidence and Patient Demographics of Pre-Hospital Anaphylaxis in Tasmania" by Melanie Blackhall and company. Please look it up. As I cannot screenshot proof the link has the specified research I'll 'inline' the over-view here:'

Methods

Raw data was searched and extracted from Ambulance Tasmania electronic recording system and case records for the period 1st January 2007 to 31st December 2011. This involved data mining 279,482 cases with the search parameters of anaphylaxis and allergy/ allergic reaction.

Results

There were 1,570 patients were classified as having allergic reaction (including the most severe form of anaphylaxis). 379 (24.1%) of the atopic group were given a final primary diagnosis of anaphylaxis. The adult cases distribution was female at 219 (57.8%) versus males at 160 cases (42.2%). Interestingly 21.1% of the total anaphylaxis cases were paediatric (n=80) with a greater percentage of male (n=46) to female (n=34) paediatric patients. Aetiology was identified in 85.5% of the cases accordingly: envenomation (insects) 141 (37.2%), food 118 (31.1%), medication 58 (15.3%), known other 4 (1.1%).'

I'm happy to break it down for you.😊

The population of Tasmania for 2011 was 495,352. Admissions recorded 1,570 patients over those 4 years. As a percentage this is 3% of all Tasmanians over 4 years for ANY type of allergy (food, drugs, bugs etc). Refined to 379 as being formally identified as anaphylaxis. Of the 379 the number of those related to insect bites was 141 (for wasp, spider, bee and ant). The percentage of 141 persons of a population of 495,352 is 0.028464607%. Per year that's 0.00003558075%. The amount of Jack Jumper specific anaphylaxis was never identified and a suitable method of BAT testing, serum testing has proven unsuccessful to date. So at a very generous percentage, if JackJumpers were responsible for all insect related anaphylaxis the number would be 0.00003558075% per year of the Tasmanian population during the specified time frame. 203.59.212.191 (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Why are you content with unsubstantiated percentages in the main article but newer information receives a different standard of scrutiny? Your jam may be spelling; mine is consistency, logic and facts. 203.59.212.191 (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

In the edited paragraph this statement appears: ' In endemic areas, up to 3% of the human population has developed an allergy to the venom and about half of these allergic people can suffer from anaphylactic reactions.' It provides no substantiation of this, yet you take no umbrage with it..?? My sentence provided inline, linked reference. Statement and researched SOURCE. I can see you prioritize spelling, perhaps this prompted your edit? The only 'unresearched POV' appears to be Your's in removing research based facts. If you do not agree with the percentages presented in the research paper please explain your POV. 203.59.212.191 (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If I cannot see the "reference" you have included, I cannot accept the "facts" you are claiming. Statements like "The percentage of Tasmanians suffering anaphylaxis to Myrmecia pilosum toxin is grossly inflated several hundred times by the government funded parties involved in the research and funding (my bold) of immunotherapy and in the media." need very specific references to support such a claim, not WP:SYNTHESIS from other figures. - Arjayay (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is my first time on 'talk.' I think I may have incorrectly replied, forgive me if you are seeing this twice.

Perhaps per country server restrictions are why you cannot access the research. The title of the articles is "Incidence and Patient Demographics of Pre-Hospital Anaphylaxis in Tasmania" by Melanie Blackhall and company. Please look it up. As I cannot screenshot proof the link has the specified research I'll 'inline' the over-view here:'

Methods

Raw data was searched and extracted from Ambulance Tasmania electronic recording system and case records for the period 1st January 2007 to 31st December 2011. This involved data mining 279,482 cases with the search parameters of anaphylaxis and allergy/ allergic reaction.

Results

There were 1,570 patients were classified as having allergic reaction (including the most severe form of anaphylaxis). 379 (24.1%) of the atopic group were given a final primary diagnosis of anaphylaxis. The adult cases distribution was female at 219 (57.8%) versus males at 160 cases (42.2%). Interestingly 21.1% of the total anaphylaxis cases were paediatric (n=80) with a greater percentage of male (n=46) to female (n=34) paediatric patients. Aetiology was identified in 85.5% of the cases accordingly: envenomation (insects) 141 (37.2%), food 118 (31.1%), medication 58 (15.3%), known other 4 (1.1%).'

I'm happy to break it down for you.😊

The population of Tasmania for 2011 was 495,352. Admissions recorded 1,570 patients over those 4 years. As a percentage this is 3% of all Tasmanians over 4 years for ANY type of allergy (food, drugs, bugs etc). Refined to 379 as being formally identified as anaphylaxis. Of the 379 the number of those related to insect bites was 141 (for wasp, spider, bee and ant). The percentage of 141 persons of a population of 495,352 is 0.028464607%. Per year that's 0.00003558075%. The amount of Jack Jumper specific anaphylaxis was never identified and a suitable method of BAT testing, serum testing has proven unsuccessful to date. So at a very generous percentage, if JackJumpers were responsible for all insect related anaphylaxis the number would be 0.00003558075% per year of the Tasmanian population during the specified time frame.

I'm happy to let you squash this, a fair amount of nervousness has resulted from presenting this; government scientists are disciplined for contradicting media narratives, even if this is supposedly anonymous. 203.59.212.191 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Also your ironic inline link about how inline links aren't permissible states: "external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article. " 203.59.212.191 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

amendment: per year that's 0.00711615175%, by giving Jack Jumpers half the insect venom statistics, not 1/4 of the four types that equals 0.00003558075%. 203.59.212.191 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I've got work to do. As you have taken the responsibility upon yourself to remove the content the responsibility is now yours to re-instate it. You have been availed of correct information and you have knowledge of wiki's 'linkage to sources' parameters. 203.59.212.191 (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, appreciating your expertise in the area mentioned, I was wondering if you would weigh in on another wiki query:"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edmund_Burke&action=edit&section=14" 203.59.212.191 (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP from NSW - I was called away last night so did not see your posts until this morning, and note you have extensively edited both Jack jumper ant and Myrmecia (ant) in the interim.
There may well be "country server restrictions" (often because organisations still include the UK in the EEC, although we left on 31 January 2020) although such restrictions are usually stated as such, not "The requested article is not currently available on this site."
I have no idea what relevance my correction of spellings is, but it was the use of "reasearch"[sic] that drew my attention to the article.
As for inline links, you have totally misunderstood the statement "external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article." That means you can include them in citations (references), not use "bare" external links within the body of an article. I note you have added several external links to the bodytext of the above mentioned articles this morning. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for how to create citations. Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Doranahalli

I've declined the revdel on Doranahalli. I share your opinion that this is probably a copyvio, but all the sources I've looked at are far more recent webpages than 2008 when the article was created. Even looking at their archived versions I can't get back to 2008, so the likelihood is that they have copied the WP article, not the other way round. As I can't say conclusively that the article is a copyvio, I have to decline the revdel and removal of the content from the article will have to suffice for now. This can always be revisited if another older source shows up. Nthep (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Nthep - sorry to have wasted your time - Arjayay (talk) 17:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

it's not wasting my time. It needed checking. Nthep (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Why you change my edit on my village?

Duhra is my village,, not you, so why you change this. My upload my friends link village tour not a money purpose. You delete all the video… why contact me this email [redacted] or write back down 59.97.213.3 (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I have deleted your e-mail address to reduce the risk of you being scammed.

Wikipedia is not interested in who you are, where you are from, what you "know", or even what you have found out.
Wikipedia is only interested in what has already been published in independent, reliable sources, by a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking - No blogs, no self-published sources, no bodies with a conflict of interest, no promotional sites.
Your friend's home-made videos about your village, do not meet these criteria, so I removed them.
Furthermore, we do not allow external links in the body of our articles (see the first line of WP:EL), nor indic script as per WP:NOINDICSCRIPT, which explains my other removals. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Unblocking of User:Friday musa

Hi @Arjayay. Hope this message finds you well. I write to you with respect to the Indefinite blockage set to User:Friday musa's account on the English Wikipedia. I have been following the discussion and I have seen that it is taking quite long to resolve. I am appealing not just on his behalf but on the behalf of the Tyap Wikimedians User Group to help unblock his account as this posseses a big setback to our operations as an affiliate. Thanks and warm regards, Kambai Akau (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Kambai Akau, I'm not an admin, so I cannot help you. - Arjayay (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, ow. Okay no problems, thanks anyway @Arjayay, Kambai Akau (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

I noticed that you keep removing duplicate words whenever I accidentally make mistakes across several articles. Thanks for removing those unnecessary words! Would you mind sharing your secret about how you immediately found them? It would save you some work.--+JMJ+ (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi +JMJ+ - Thanks for your post, it is appreciated when the Wikignomes, including me, are thanked. As for the "secret", the only secret is not being bored doing repetitive tasks! I make at least daily searches for the most common duplications, and cover the entire Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/Repetitions at least once per month. Thanks for your thanks and happy editing - Arjayay (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, and a question!

Hi Arjayay, I've come across your username multiple times now doing the tireless work of cleaning up in article space. First of all, thank you for all your contributions: editors like you give me something to strive for in the long-term!

I have one question: you seem to be particularly quick to find duplicated words, such as "the the," in article content. I'm just starting to get acquainted with tools like Twinkle, and I was wondering if you use a specific editing tool or script to identify these errors?

Despite priding myself on my experience with copyediting, I still find it somewhat easy to overlook this type of error, so when I do more formal copyedits of larger articles in the future, it would be valuable to run such a tool in addition to my manual review.

If it's just the case that you have an eagle-eye for such repetitions, then I doubly congratulate you for your skills! Either way, thanks again and know that when folks like me come across your edits, we smile and are grateful that you're doing *more* than your part. Happy editing and best wishes! Chiselinccc (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chiselinccc, thanks for your post, and your appreciation of my work.
I am unusual (some would say I'm very unusual!) in that I do not use Twinkle, or any other tools, preferring to make all my edits manually. I did try a tool about 12 years ago, but didn't like it, and only made about 4 or 5 before abandoning it (I've just tried a search for my automated edits, but X Tools timed out after 900 seconds). I make daily searches for the most common duplications, using the standard CTRL+F "find" command, and cover the entire Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/Repetitions at least once per month.
As for checking extensive copyediting, I often paste the article text (not the edit page text because of the mark-up) into Word, check I'm using the correct variety of English (my version has 18 choices from Australia to Zimbabwe) and let it find the problems. On a multi-screen set-up this is less laborious than it sounds. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Amazing, and indeed, your skills are next-level with all you accomplish without tooling! Thanks for your great response and advice, and best wishes to you as well :-D Chiselinccc (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I thank you for your work, too. And you comments on this page are very entertaining. It reminds me of my mother talking about Bob Dylan and Lay Lady Lay being smutty. I am wondering if you are not using tools, can you verify that you are not a bot? And could you cite a proper source on that? A few hours ago, starting at 15:58, you made 63 edits in 37 minutes. Anyway, thanks again. P.S. I will probably move the text you corrected on Brodmann area 9 to a better location. Bodysurfinyon (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bodysurfinyon, thanks for your post. I can verify I'm not a bot, but of course I am not a reliable source, and I'm sure you can programme self-denial into a bot.
The best way to demonstrate it is probably that I only did 63 edits in 37 minutes, which is really slow. Compare this with this edit history where there were 57 edits in a minute at 06.50 - that's a bot in use - and why that user has over 5.8 million edits. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Lok Puram Public School

I've noticed that you removed my entry of lok puram school yesterday. It is one of old schools in thane, & I see no reason to have it removed. I'm re-adding it. 117.228.168.122 (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello IP - as stated in my edit summary " Rm addition without an article = no inclusion - as it clearly states". This was further explained on your talk page User talk:117.228.165.132, but you have since changed IP address.
The edit page of that article clearly states "♦♦♦ Only add a school to this list if it already has its own article on the English Wikipedia ♦♦♦" both at the top of that section, and 4 lines below your addition, so you could not have missed it, but just ignored it. I will revert your re-addition for the same reasons - Arjayay (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Who drafted such instruction in first place ? Doesn't make sense. If the school exists, it should be included. I provided school's website link. If you want you create school's page, I don't mind. But removing entry because of some nonsensical instruction is dumb thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.206.162 (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Wikipedia does not aim to include everything that exists, just the things that are notable enough to merit their own Wikipedia article.
There are over 1.5 million schools in India, so we need to be selective about which are included. If you wish to create an article about that school, please ensure it meets WP:NSCHOOL - our notability criteria for schools. Many people try to create articles about non-notable schools and are frustrated when the articles are refused, or subsequently deleted. As an indicator, there have been more deletions from, than additions to, the List of schools in India this year. - Arjayay (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Dorcas Muthoni

Sorry for the edit war I meant to revert the whole paragraph when I reverted your edits. :) Tescomealdeal1 (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

No worries Tescomealdeal1, we all make mistakes, me probably more than most. - Happy editing - Arjayay (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Shabir Ahluwalia's entry in War 2 and YRF Spy Universe

despite giving a source from Pinkvilla website that Shabir is in War 2, you still don't believe it. I am not entering this for fun, my friend who's works in YRF told me so it's an insider's claim. Makers are not confirmed with Shabir Ahluwalia's involvement in the future projects. Once they get confirmed, they will automatically announce it by big critics like Taran Adarsh and Himesh Mankad. 112.196.181.76 (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

112.196.181.76 your edits at YRF Spy Universe as seen here very clearly did not include any references. You did not edit Draft:War 2 using that IP address and I can't see any nearby IP addresses editing that article. Furthermore, I have not deleted any references from that article since at least last September (I got bored checking back at that point).
As for your "insider's claim" we have no interest in that whatsoever, only what has been published, as fact not rumour, in WP:Reliable sources - Arjayay (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

yes! the spin-off one did not include source, but removing Shabir Ahluwalia's name from everywhere was necessary for you right, despite providing a Pinkvilla source(and it was not important for you to check it also). 112.196.181.76 (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

As you have admitted, you did not provide a source, so you can't claim "despite providing a Pinkvilla source" because you didn't - Arjayay (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

You have made yet another unsourced addition. The source must be given as a reference in the article, which is what people read, not mentioned in an edit summary. - Arjayay (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Copper(I) sulfate/sulphate

Independent of general ENGVAR (first-mover, inertia, local ties), WP:SULF is specific to this one spelling detail across all chemistry-related articles. DMacks (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

As a Brit, I am pleased to see the IUPAC got Aluminium right! - Arjayay (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Racquet and Racket

Hi Arjayay, Thank you for taking an interest in this page. I see from the above that you are particularly interested in correcting mis-spellings on wikipedia—thank goodness someone is! However, this is one of those cases where you might have needed to read the wikilinked article to Prince's Club. If you had been able to do so you would have found that the club's name is spelled as I spelled it: raquet. The point here is that it was a mid-nineteenth century club and spelling was not as rigorously static as it became (before the advent of social media began to upset the apple cart). If you look at the article on p.5 of the Morning Post dated 20 May 1889 you will find the spelling I used. But if you look at the article published on page 6 of the Pall Mall Gazette dated 18 May 1889 (only two days earlier), you will find the club's name spelled Racket. Much to my surprise, when I checked this morning on the 2023 edition of Collins English dictionary, the entry indicates that either spelling is still correct. I will, therefore, be reverting to my original spelling.

However, I am extremely grateful for your bringing this up because in checking the spelling this morning I noticed, after unchallenged use on a website for over a decade, that Racquet (or Racket) appears in the club's title in the singular rather than the plural, and I am now changing this also. Best wishesIshpoloni (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ishpoloni, thanks for your post. I remember Googling "Prince's Club" before making my change, but if both spellings were being used within 2 days, it was probably just "pot-luck" which version I ended up with. I think the note you added to Victorian Turkish baths explains the situation, and should avoid, or at least reduce, future changes (although racquet/racket being knocked back and forth seems rather appropriate !). Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I like the back and forth!Ishpoloni (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)