Jump to content

User talk:Arjayay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 117.228.206.162 (talk) at 16:16, 16 March 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

E-mails

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.

Broadcasted

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks Nthep - sorry to have wasted your time - Arjayay (talk) 17:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's not wasting my time. It needed checking. Nthep (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry Kambai Akau, I'm not an admin, so I cannot help you. - Arjayay (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ow. Okay no problems, thanks anyway @Arjayay, Kambai Akau (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arjayay&oldid=1214038380"