User talk:Arjayay

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

You can use "Email this user", but I will probably reply on your talk page, or the article talk page, as discussions should be open and on the record.
I have experienced problems with e-mails not being delivered, so please leave me a message on this page if I have not replied within 48 hours.

The Wiktionary definition of Broadcasted states the use is sometimes proscribed, so it should not be used. The word also appears on Wikipedia:Lists_of_common_misspellings/B

Broadcasted appears in some dictionaries, but others, e.g. Chambers state "Sorry, no entries for Broadcasted were found".
Broadcast appears in all dictionaries, and should be used as COMMONALITY - "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English".

A May 2023 search for Broadcast gave over 234,000 uses, compared with a search for Broadcasted which gave just 99.
Of these, 16 are redirects to "Broadcast" articles, 14 refer to a 2015 Canadian TV award and 5 relate to a 1924 cartoon. The rest are in quotations.

Hi, Urdu isn't an Indic script. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 18:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Matrix. Any non-latin script is deemed an "Indic script" - this was discussed with regards to Arabic about 10 years ago. - Arjayay (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly link the discussion. Also this doesn't really much make sense as Perso-Arabic script is simply not Indic. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 19:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair request Matrix. The trouble with my having been here over 17 years is recalling exactly when/where something was discussed.
My initial search has drawn a blank, but I did discover a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles#Specify Urdu alphabet in MOS:INDICSCRIPT?. Rather than us having a private discussion, which will carry no weight with the rest of the community, I suggest you join in that public discussion. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arjayay I just saw the conflicting edits in the revision history of the page. At The WP: NOINDICSCRIPTS it's highlighted that urdu doesn't fall in the category as it uses Arabic script. If this isn't true, does the page need to be revised for errors or untrue information? _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 05:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the Hindustani spellings of Shaikh Paltu saying that they have been removed due to the Wikipedia policy that Indic scripts should not be used. Okay, it's fine. But, long before you even edited the page, Devanagri spelling of his name was there for a long time but as soon as I wrote the Nastaliq spelling of his name, you removed both the versions. Besides, Shaikh Paltu was from North India and Hindustani is and was a prominent language in the area. So, it isn't too wrong to add the Hindustani spellings.

So, I am adding the spellings again and request you to not remove them as it only increases the information and not decreases the information or vandalizes the page. Amogh Tripathi (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amogh Tripathi Please do not vandalise that article. WP:NOINDICSCRIPT clearly applies, and the fact that it had not been picked up and deleted earlier, is totally irrelevant. - Arjayay (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, I want to talk about Request for A Talented Bangladeshi Musician profile creation, please response my message Maturealert (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Maturealert, I know nothing about Bangladeshi musicians, and I don't have enough time to create articles about things I do know about, and am interested in.
Wikipedia is not interested in whether they are "talented", but whether they are "notable", in Wikipedia's meaning of the word. Do you have at least three references that meet WP:42 ? - i.e. that

1. Give significant coverage and discuss the topic directly and in detail, not just passing mentions, lists or event schedules.
   and
2. Are reliable, issued by a publisher with a reputation for fact checking, not tabloid papers or magazines, fansites, social media, or blogs.
   and
3. Are independent from the subject of the article. Not interviews, press releases, or other material written, or paid for, by the subject, their friends, or agents.

Each of your three references must meet all 3 criteria, not one meeting one criterion and another meeting a different one. If you do not have such references, please don't waste your time, or the reviewers time, creating an article, as it will almost certainly not be approved. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Sir Maturealert (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I have seen you have been reverting IP edits in Buddhism by country. Just to let you know, I agree with your view that there seems to be some coordinated movement of IP addresses to inflate the number of followers especially in China. The most clearcut figure is page 24 of this PDF by formal affiliation. The 33% is misleading since its just worship of Buddha rather than official affiliation those same responders also follow other religions like Chinese folk religion which is basically double counting. The math simply does not add up when looking at all the other religions they also follow and trying to add them up. I also have reason to think they are not coming when the best intention when they replaced an entire data source for many countries with one just focused on China making the sourcing completely wrong (i have corrected it btw).

Anyway be on the lookout for multiple pages. The impact is pretty significant here. Who knows how many have been mislead since the actions weren't corrected for a long time. I normally don't really care about this stuff since I'm not as active as before but I just couldn't let it slide when looking into it further. Imcdc Contact 12:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Imcdc - Thank you for the time you have spent trying to tidy up this mess. I am currently watching one account and 5 IPs (4 from Bangladesh(!) and one from Faridabad, India), with regard to this. Unfortunately, I have had other calls on my time, so have not been able to delve back into the earlier falsifications, so thanks again for doing that. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Friend ,

I hope you are doing well. I thank you for your advise and edits on Sikand (surname). I request you to allow some of your time to also check the following. I also tried adding one in Peer review but it was not added in the list. Thus, I am sharing it here.

There is a problem in my Sandbox as I can't seem to edit it. I have added all the pages here and can you please let me know how to get them approved as well?

1) Koer Singh Kalal

2) Arvind Walia

3) Bimbet

4) V. K. Ahluwalia

5) Padamjit Singh Ahluwalia HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry HilssaMansen19 I'm not sure what you are asking. The five articles you have listed above, do not need "approval", but they will need reviewing by a WP:New page reviewer before they are eligible for inclusion in search engines. As I am not a "New page reviewer", I cannot do that, and you will have to wait your turn, as there are currently 18,072 pages awaiting review. Unreviewed articles are prevented from being indexed by search engines for 90 days. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your wishes and solving the exact doubts I had. I was thinking there is a problem with not writing through Sandbox as my Sandbox is not working.

I will try and find some help from the page you shared.

Good day/evening ahead to you! HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

42.105.196.81/24 (talk · contribs) is changing a lot of films' remakes. Often making it a remake of a Bengali film. Most is unsourced, so not sure what to do with this. Suggestions? Thanks! Adakiko (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adakiko, I am not an Admin, and, given how many edits you have made, I'm sure you know the standard procedure:
Revert such unsourced changes with a clear edit summary, and warn the editor, escalating these warnings as per WP:WARNING if they continue.
So far in April, only 2 IPs in the range you have given have made edits, but if they continue after a level 4 (final) warning, list the IPs at WP:AIV and request a rangeblock. As neither IP has received any warnings, currently admins will not be very interested. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arjayay

Thanks for pointing out the missing reference. Will add the details and add a reference. Newbie editor issues. Georgethomasp (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Arjayay, is there anyway we can get that Italian Sikh IP starting with 93 banned from Wikipedia? They have been vandalizing/disrupting for a few years now. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]