User talk:Arjayay

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.

---

---

Kalinga under the Mauryan

Please listen, do not change or add content at this article with giving any sources by yourself there. Find sources on the internet and add them to this article now. Thank you. 59.93.0.169 (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why you have come here - I have never edited Kalinga under the Mauryan - but looking at it, it clearly needs more sources. - Arjayay (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism and removal of redirect under the page Tiyyar

Hi, i have seen that the redirect to ezhava from the topic thiyya is recently removed by someone. this issue has been discussed from 2013 and all of the main editors have redirected it to the main page ezhava. the new page tiyyar is a low quality copy of the same page and in addition to that, this is claiming things like there is a dialect called thiyya in the lead with the help of some random new articles. when almost all of the raj era sources suggests that both are same . i cant find any evidence to prove that both are separate. Also in most of the cases the name ezhava is used instead of thiyya , this is again making heavy confusions as in 100+ pages are there where they have been mentioned as the same. In addition to that the recently made page is heavily vandalised and is entirely based on some news articles. please look into it an bring the redirect back , as i saw from 2013 ownwards almost everyone had bought the redirect back whenever someone have removed it. Lisa121996 (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why you have come here, as I have never edited the Tiyyar page - please take this up at Talk:Tiyyar which is the relevant page for such concerns. - Arjayay (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Constrained minimum criterion

As you might have noticed, I have reverted your edit of removing the redirect. In addition to what I said in the edit summary, I note the redirect is needed since otherwise the draft will be deleted by G13. By redirecting it, we can keep the draft content in the history. Taku (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No Taku. If, as you claim in your edit summary "the topic does not seem to merit an inclusion in Wikipedia" and "there is no need to develop this draft", we can happily let it die in due course, however, it was edited yesterday, specifically to avoid G13, so that argument is invalid. I still believe that hiding the latest content, be it good, bad or indifferent, behind a redirect is counter-productive to the draft being developed and confusing to other editors. Moreover, under the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, we should be discussing this in the status quo ante, rather than you trying to force the issue by edit warring before any discussion has taken place. - Arjayay (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The dummy edit was because I requested the undeletion of the draft (so the admin made the dummy edit). It was I who judged the draft need not be developed (since the topic seems too recent) but some other editors might think differently so it is actually more productive to just let it redirect to the mainspace, I think. It is even possible that the draft may contain some materials that can be merged into the mainspace articles. If we just let it die, then we cannot see the deleted content so like I did, we need to request the undeletion. (Basically the problem with G13 is that we don’t know the reason for the deletion. With the redirect, there is more info like I judged that the topic is not notable and if needed, we can revisit that decision.) —- Taku (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Taku, that is rather confusing. "It was I who judged the draft needs not be developed"? - So you had it re-instated, and then hid it behind a redirect? If other editors cannot see that there is a draft article, they are highly unlikely to develop it. Furthermore, why did you request undeletion if you "judged the draft needs not be developed"?
G13 requires 6 months of inactivity, I suggest that if there has been no activity (from you or any other editors) in 6 months, then we have a clear indication that it is still not notable, so deletion would be logical. - Arjayay (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No, the inactivity has nothing to do with notability: it just means no activity regardless of the notability. I requested the undeletion since I couldn’t tell just from the draft name alone what the draft is about. Also, redirecting a draft doesn’t actually prevent editors from working it: anyone who believes the topic is notable can just undo the redirecting and develop the draft, including the creator of the draft. (Also, redirecting a draft to the mainspace actually helps editors discover the draft through “what links here”. —- Taku (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you will be surprised how few casual readers/editors will even find out that there is a draft article hidden behind the redirect, so it is less likely to be developed. - Arjayay (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

About “bold, revert”. You made a bold edit without discussion, which I reverted. Now, we are discussing the issue (so I think we are procedurally correct). —- Taku (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No, Taku, that is a clear and obvious misunderstanding of WP:BRD. You made the "bold" edit, without discussion, of turning it into a redirect, I "reverted" it (you cannot deny that I reverted your edit), so that is the point that it should be discussed, in the status quo ante, not after you have repeated your "bold" edit. - Arjayay (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess it’s the question of what the status quo was. You can say the status quo was the deleted state. So, redirecting it was actually closer to the deleted state. I don’t think we can argue the status quo was the state of being developed, since it wasn’t as you can see from the history. —- Taku (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Sigh - Please don't try to use semantics to try and justify your position. You redirected the article, I reverted you, and that is the status quo ante when the matter should have been discussed. I will leave this to you, and your conscience, as I have some more useful editing to be getting on with. - Arjayay (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

In short, we clearly see how drafts that need not be developed should be handled differently. In any case, as it turned out, some other editor reverted the redirect too. So I think that settles the matter. (I still think the deletion is less productive but that’s just my view). —- Taku (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Misclick

Sorry about this, misclicked. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries Euryalus' I'm sure we've all done it, but thanks for the apology. Best wishes- Arjayay (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Why did you place this on the user page?

Surely this should go on the user talk page rather than the user page? Un assiolo (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Un assiolo - my mistake - have moved it to the talk page. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Dogra

Regarding this, Sitush removed it [ for being unsourced. This user added it back [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dogras&diff=1182014921&oldid=1182014747, I removed it [1], today he added that back [2], excuse being vandalism from our part!. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Up to you Fylindfotberserk. I accept Sitush's reasoning in theory, but pragmatically, we have dozens of such articles, and whenever such a list is totally deleted, it reappears sooner or later. I am willing to spend my time restricting such lists to people with articles and keeping them in order, which avoids duplicates, but I think the endless total delete/reinstatement circle is non-productive and I don't have time to provide citations for all the entries.

If you think it should all be reverted, then do so, with a detailed explanation in your edit summary and on the talk page. Alternatively, find sources for those that you can, and tag the others CN, separating them from those with sources with a clean-up list template, and then delete the unsourced entries in say 6 months time, after editors have had a chance to provide citations (although I doubt they will have). I think you know that this is what I often do for schools. - Arjayay (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I have been having trouble editing this section - it keeps reverting to an earlier edit that I had previewed but not saved, I have now managed to edit my previous reply. - Arjayay (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

After a quick check, only 9 of the current list appear to be alive and 18 are dead, so few are required to/likely to meet the self-identification parameter. We are also likely to encounter the Raj sources problem with many of the older entries. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Mistake linking

Hi I like to inform you that you mistake the festival of La Gomera 'Virgen de Guadalupe' with another festival of the virgin of Guadalupe in Extremadura. Eduardo ECC (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I already fix it for you Eduardo ECC (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)