User talk:Arjayay

A Gnome Explains

I became a WikiGnome after I found I had misspelt retrieved, as retreived (ei), three times in one article (one mistake, copied & pasted).
I set myself a "penance" of correcting the "ei" versions in Wikipedia articles, but only intended to do the 100 or so misspellings there were at the time
I then adopted "retrieved" (retreived, retrived, retreved) and then added "rhythm” (rhythem, rhythim, rhythym, rhytm, rythem, rythim, rythm & rythym)

I then got carried away, and adopted the Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/R - all of it. Don’t do it, it's bad for your health

Broadcasted

The Wiktionary definition of Broadcasted states that the use is 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 November 2016 search for Broadcast gave over 177,000 uses, compared with a search for Broadcasted which gave just 40.
Of these 40, 15 are redirects to "Broadcast" articles, 5 relate to a 1924 cartoon, and the rest are quotations.

---

---

Unsourced edits

Hi, I have already left my reply on my talk page. Please take a look at it. It is a common practice to change the name of diplomatic missions from "High Commission" to "Embassy" after a country has left the Commonwealth. Don't you understand that? High Commissioner is a position held when both the sending and receiving country are members of the Commonwealth.

My sincere apology for disappointing you but I really don't understand why making such changes while stating my reasons isn't good enough. Do I need any references to proof that "High Commissions" has been changed to "Embassy" when it is a non-disputable fact in the first place? Which part of my explaination is still unclear? How come you are able to keep track of any new edits that I have made?

I am also not aware of what exactly constitutes to an original research as I may have overlooked when LemonGirl1942 gave me the guideline page. You may wish to give me a few such examples to illustrate it. Please don't report me to ANI yet as I am still clueless with original research despite having a better understanding of unsourced edit. Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Xinyang Aliciabritney - We are not interested in what you claim is "common practice" - we are only interested in what has already been stated, in reliable sources, which need to be cited as references, so that the information can then be verified.

Yes you do need "references to proof that "High Commissions" has been changed to "Embassy" when it is a non-disputable fact in the first place" - because it is certainly not a "non-disputable fact". (Your statement that a "High Commissioner is a position held when both the sending and receiving country are members of the Commonwealth." is incorrect - see High Commissioner, but that is irrelevant).

I defended you at ANI by stating that you now realised "that proper references from reliable sources are a fundamental requirement, not an optional extra." Unfortunately, my belief was mistaken, as, by trying to argue that references are not required, you clearly do not understand that references are a fundamental requirement.
Let us keep it simple - do not add, or alter, any information, in any article, without citing a reliable source, so the information can be verified.
Although there are situations where this is not strictly required, from your arguments above, you clearly do not understand when this would apply, so please ensure that all changes/additions have specific sources. Furthermore, please do not try to argue that, because other information in the article is unsourced, than you do not need to supply sources. Other stuff exists is not a valid argument in Wikipedia - we know there is some poorly referenced material, but we are trying to improve the Encyclopaedia, not bring it all down to the worst example.

As for your question "How come you are able to keep track of any new edits that I have made?"; any editor, can see easily every edit, of any other editor. Your edit list is here, and is exactly the same list as you see by clicking on "contributions" at the top of the page with a PC or Laptop - I do not know about phones. As I said at ANI "I am willing to keep an eye on their edits for the next few weeks" so I am now honour bound to check your edits.

As for Lemongirl942's comments about original research, please read the policy at Original research, which is summarized as

" ... all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves"

So, even if you find a reliable source, stating that one High Commission has become an Embassy, you cannot then change all the High Commissions to Embassies, as this would be "to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources" This may, or may not be, what Lemongirl942 was referring to - you would have to ask her. - Arjayay (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I really appreciate your time to explain to me about the policies while clarifying my doubts here. Please do not be too quick to pass your judgement just because of my new unsourced edits on the High Commissions. U said that u were wrong in defending and supporting me in the first place which makes me upset when I hear that from you.

Is it alright for you to check my work if I am unsure if what I have added requires references from now on? It is highly possible for me to insert information with original research without me noticing it in the first place. Perhaps I would like you to check my recent edits on Entertainment events at the O2 Arena, Singapore Indoor Stadium, Entertainment events at Sydney Super Dome & Entertainment events at Staples Center and give me your feedbacks on my edits there. These are the articles that I'm editing more frequently right now. Do point out to me if you noticed any unreliable references so that I can remove it ASAP. I will try my very best to include the most reliable references to it or I will remove them manually by myself otherwise. Do let me know if data on attendance and box office should be cited with references as well. Thank you. Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes of course "attendance and box office should be cited with references" - otherwise anyone can simply make up the numbers for attendance and box office figures. Assuming you did not make them up, you must have got them from somewhere, so that source needs to be cited.

As I said in bold above:- Do not add, or alter, any information, in any article, without citing a reliable source, so the information can be verified.

Please read the two articles linked in that sentence:- Wikipedia:Verifiability states "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources explains what Wikipedia means by a reliable source. - Arjayay (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I have gotten them on other Wikipedia articles related to tour pages, so I just simply copied and paste it there. Does this same rule applies for "Supporting Acts" as well? If that is the scenario here, I will remove the "Attendance" and "Box Office" column" instead since it is too tricky and difficult to verify them. I don't wish to sound silly to you but I would like to confirm any doubts I have before I make any further edits. Please keep an eye on me if you noticed any unauthorized edits being made as I need more advice and supervisions for the time being. Just remember WP:BITE and WP:GF when it comes to my edits here. Taken note of what you highlighted in bold. Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 05:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the overlinking in Ho language page.

Sir, indigenous people in India have been mistreated throughout the history. Hence they are quite sensitive to what non-tribals write or talk about them. User Purty must have felt somethings as incorrectly written in the Ho language page. Although I don't agree with the edits the user was making, but understanding his sentiments, I apologize on behalf of the user. (I'm a Ho myself.) Singkiring57 (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Singkiring57 - Thank you for your post, and for your useful edits to the Ho language page. Unfortunately, since your edits, User:Purty has, yet again, re-added the link to Ho which is a disambiguation page (an index of other pages), so should not be linked-to in any article. Rather than me repeatedly removing this incorrect link, could you please remove it, and explain to User:Purty why this should not be re-added.

It is not just Indian indigenous people that have been mistreated, the problem has occurred throughout the world, and we have numerous articles on such groups. Unfortunately, as with the Ho people and Ho language articles, some people try to OWN such pages, and claim that only people from their ethnic group/clan/tribe should edit the page.
As I have tried to explain to User:Purty this is not acceptable at Wikipedia; anyone can edit any page, provided their edits are within Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, are written from a neutral point of view and the information is sourced to reliable sources. - Arjayay (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Adjustment to payment providers

Hi Arjayay,

I have added an amendment to the list of online payment service providers. Please could you take a look at my revisions and let me know if you approve of it being changed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_online_payment_service_providers#Amend_Atos_to_Worldline

Hi Ghesp - I have replied at Talk:List of online payment service providers, to keep the all the conversation/discussion in a related place.
PS Please sign all posts on talk pages with 4 tildes ( ~~~~ ) which will add your signature and a timestamp. - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit at Teahouse

Your recent deletion of a duplicate question from the Teahouse looks (in the edit diff) entrirely correct, but somehow has not pruduced the intended result. Maybe there was an edit clash, I was simultaneously answering the (upper version of) the question. I am reluctant to try to sort out what happened while I don't undertand it. Maproom (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Maproom
Looking at the history, you completed your reply at 09.25, and I deleted the earlier question at 09.27 so, unless you tried to make an edit after your 09.25 one, which was lost due to an edit conflict, I'm not sure what you think is "not the intended result" ? Since my edit David Biddulph removed the first question by that editor, which, as it was mixed up with the previous question, I did not recognize as another repeat. - Arjayay (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. I now realise that Imran Sarwar asked his question three times, one of them with no heading; and you removed one of them. Maproom (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Interlanguage

Sorry, I couldn't exactly get you. Where was the mistake and which article? I would look to rectify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thapa Kazi999 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC) I checked the upper left button of language interlinks of the article and it linked to counterpart article in other languages exactly. How was it mistake and where?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thapa Kazi999 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Adam's Peak

I'm wondering about socks here. Either that or meatpuppets. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Doug Weller - almost certainly - four new accounts in less than 15 hours, three of which make semi-protected edit requests as their first and only edit, the other commenting in a (closed) requested move discussion, creating a redirect page as their only two edits. 2 IPs making semi-protected edit requests in the same time-window. As long as they keep creating new accounts they will not become autoconfirmed .... - Arjayay (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Which is a good thing of course. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Persians

You gave me a warning changing the Persian people page. But someones obviously vandalizing that page as theyre only Including Iranian Persians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iranianguy (talk • contribs) 03:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

So far, you have supplied no sources that attests to it that the Hazaras, Tajiks, Tats, etc. are included under the label of ethnic Persians/Persian people. A Persian-speaker is not necessarily the same as an ethnic Persian, the same way a German-speaker is not necessarily an ethnic German. You need reliable sources, written by well-established authors (as this is a large subject) that explicitly state that these aforementioned groups are part of the ethnic Persian group, and fall under its label. So far however, you are editing based on your personal opinion regarding what it should be -- which is clear cut disruption. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

For the archive record User:Iranianguy was indeffed at 02.07 the following morning - Arjayay (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Distance

Do we need distances map for Transport section like Nizamabad,_Telangana#Roads?--Vin09 (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Vin09
I can't see that it adds any "value" to the page, but I don't know of any guideline against it, other than it being totally unsourced. - Arjayay (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Reciprocity columns

Ivanacurtis asked me for the reason that I have added the "Reciprocity" columns on Visa requirements for Venezuelan citizens. I was simply following the exact same format as Visa requirements for Serbian citizens. I have also gave my explanation for my edit on Visa requirements for Singaporean citizens. How funny that Ivanacurtis chose to revert my edit on Visa requirements for Venezuelan citizens but he didn't remove the "Reciprocity" column for Visa requirements for Serbian citizens when it wasn't done by me but another editor? I believe that Twofornights is a very experienced editor whom specialises in editing articles related to Visa requirements and Visa policies for many years. If I have violated WP:V, he/she would have already reverted my edit but instead, he/she went on to help me make further improvements to the edits that I have already made in the first place. May I know if references is required for that since the answer for "Reciprocity" is either a "Yes" or a "No" which I believe references isn't necessary? Please advice me on that. Do I have to prove references to prove that the sun rises from the east instead of the west or having to prove evidence that there are 365 days in a year or 7 days in a week? I find it ridiculous that undisputable facts have to be sourced with reliable references.

Also, if a touring artist made an announcement regarding tour dates for an upcoming World Tour on their Facebook/Twitter, may I use that as a reliable references? How do I change the title for an article/page by the way? Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Xinyang Aliciabritney: I did not revert your edit. I've just asked where you sourced the information. Ivancurtisivancurtis (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sigh - Xinyang Aliciabritney you have been blocked twice and taken to ANI for not providing citations for information you have added. I supported you at ANI as I thought you now understood that ANY information you add, needs to be sourced. However, from your statement "I find it ridiculous that undisputable facts have to be sourced with reliable references." it is clear that you do not, or do not want to, understand.
To quote Wikipedia:Verifiability

"Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources."

Please stop trying to find excuses for not providing citations. Assuming you have not made things up, you must have found the information somewhere, so cite where - it is much easier to do so at the time, than to go back and try and relocate the reference.

Furthermore I have repeatedly explained that "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument in Wikipedia, so please stop trying to use it.

With regards to your future events announced on Twitter etc., please see WP:SOCIALMEDIA, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTPROMOTION such information is highly likely to be challenged or removed, as it can be seen as promoting ticket sales for an event. I would NOT add such information. - Arjayay (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Aryajay, please check my talk page as I have already discussed it with Ivanacurtis. He said that he might have missed something from it between me and Twofornights. I was unsure and need more advice on this that is why I came to you for help. Please don't get too annoyed or irritated if I kept asking you similar questions. So that means a references is needed to prove that the sun rises from the east instead of any other directions? Or is it disputable to mention that the earth is round and not flat? I don't wanna sound silly here but I wish to get this very clear. For some sample questions, please refer to my talk page.

For the article on Entertainment events at Sydney Super Dome, may I know which are the unreliable references that I have provided? Magnolia 677 have previously mentioned on ANI that I have some unreliable references on that page which doesn't prove what I have added was accurate and precise, I know it may seem to be troublesome for you but I hope to gain a deeper insights on that. Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

This is covered in Wikipedia:Verifiability, which I keep referring you to. Fundamentally, you need to cite any material likely to be challenged, which readers may want to check, or which may change. If you had to look anything up, even just to check your memory was right, then it definitely needs a reference. If you have specialist knowledge of a subject, then you should not assume everyone else has that knowledge, and provide references for anything you think the average reader will not know. "The sun rises in the East", would be acceptable in most articles, as it is unlikely to be challenged, unlikely to require checking, and unlikely to change. However, in the article specifically about sunrise it requires further detail, and it qualifies this by pointing out that it only rises in the East on two days of the year.
Conversely, anything that has potentially different answers, (such as reciprocity) needs a reference as it could be challenged, someone may wish to check it, and it may change. Although only an essay Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat tries to explain the more difficult things of sourcing when there are conflicting and fringe views.
As for what Magnolia 677 was referring to, I don't know, as I am not a mind reader, so you will have to ask hir.
Finally, please stop editing your posts after they have been answered, or someone has posted beneath them, as WP:REFACTORING causes confusion, and should not be done to make your question look better or the answer look wrong. It also creates numerous edit conflicts which are annoying. - Arjayay (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hitler Youth Reversion

Ah, thanks. I understand now. Thanks for the explanation! I will take that into consideration when editing other Wikipedia pages and very much appreciate that you explained. (If you didn't, people who don't look at the thing at the top that says "Written in British English" (like me) would have been bothered. That's how edit wars start.) Thanks, EatePurple (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi Arjayay, I'd love to know which of Wikipedia's policies frowns on adding telephone numbers to school pages.

Thanks, Greatkid18 Greatkid38 (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Greatkid38
I gave a specific link in the edit summary of my first deletion "Rm Telephone number as Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#What not to include" which specifically states that "Telephone numbers, fax numbers, and e-mail addresses" should not be included. I also referred to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines page in general, on your talk page.
Given your sudden, and, so far, sole interest in editing Presbyterian Boys' Senior High School; may I suggest you also read and follow our guideline on editing with a conflict of interest
Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! How about including national flags? I've seen them on a number of wiki articles. Any issue with that too? Greatkid38 (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary when removing it the first time - "Flag removed as MOS:ICON#Avoid_flag_icons_in_infoboxes"
This is also covered inWikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#General tips a section of the article referred to above:-

10. Flag icons should not be used.

Please note the green text in that sentence, which if you click on it will also take you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes
There are two main instances where flags are allowed in infoboxes - sportspeople who have represented their country, and military articles. - Arjayay (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Unclear additions

Nepali languages

Mahesh pant (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hindu language

Mahesh pant (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mahesh pant
Please do not try to hide your new posts in the middle of the page, but start a new section at the bottom, with a title.
However, as you know how to find your way around, and how to sign your posts, I suspect you are not a new editor and knew that in any case.
What are you trying to say? - Arjayay (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Please dont revert my edits

Arjay please dont revert my edits because renamed user henga2423 told me to remove that conversation. Arjun Kapoor 85 (talk)

Arjun Kapoor 85 - it is not up to you, or henga2423 to decide what is in an archive - it stands as a record of the discussion and should NOT be deleted or refactored - Arjayay (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Note for the archive User:Arjun Kapoor 85 was indeffed at 01.49 the following day - Arjayay (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks...

Shit, I keep forgetting! Thanks for the assist. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries Cyphoidbomb, I keep forgetting the colon at the beginning of my reply, so my message runs into the post before it - old age - huh - Arjayay (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Talkpage

Hiya! I think you used the userpage instead of the talkpage. Please see User:Christof Bucherer. Have a nice day, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi The Quixotic Potato - you are right - I did mistakenly put the first notice on the User page, then realized and copied it to the Talk page. I didn't remove the copy from the user page as I didn't want an potential excuse for "thinking it had been dropped, as the notice had been removed" or suchlike - Arjayay (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Your feedback requested re major changes to Cannabis in the United States

Please see: Talk:Cannabis_in_the_United_States#Proposing_bold_changes_at_Cannabis_in_the_United_States

Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Raebareli

I've cited my sourceof my edits. All edits made by me on the page Raebarli were basedon information provided on the official website of Raebareli district- http://raebareli.nic.in/. Also as the info mentioned there had certain spelling mistakes, so I corrected it. But all this was removed by you. Why! I'm unable to understand.Seomelono (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC) seomelono

Hi Seomelono - I removed it because you have NOT cited your sources - the paragraphs, and the section that I removed have no references cited whatsoever, so the information is not verifiable.
This can easily be seen by checking the number of references - there were 8 before I deleted the sections - as shown here - and there are 8 now' so I have not deleted any sourced information.
There is no point in telling me where you got the information from, it needs to be in the article, so every reader can verify that the information is true - Please read the message I left on your talk page, and in particular read WP:Verifiability and WP:Referencing for beginners - thanks - Arjayay (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Chi Pu: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Please add a user warning template to User_talk:203.205.27.223 - lollerwaffle (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The Help Desk Contributor Award

	The Help Desk National Hero Award
	Your work and contributions at the Help Desk are exemplary. With intelligent and most helpful inputs, you are truly a Help Desk National Hero :) Keep up the great work! ❤️ Lourdes 17:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)