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.

---

---

Warning after revert

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Diabetes: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/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. And some other pages like Monkmoor, Sharma, etc. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

"Spamming the same undergrad book"

Hello, I am glad you noticed this. Something odd has been happening for the past several days, which is the insertion of that book into dozens of Project Medicine articles. It is always accompanied by poorly written English, brand-new accounts with only edits to a particular article or two, and an insistence of putting-back reverted content; there has been copy-pasting straight from that book that I've had to learn how to do a copyvio-revdel for. I have been posting to talk pages with warnings, reverting changes that need it, and copyediting what seems ok to leave in. I have not gone so far as to remove instances of citing this book because I didn't want to judge for myself its merits. I have a copy of the book and it doesn't seem outright fictitious but past that I'm not a med student and can't say how high the quality is.

Can anything be done about this? Do you deem that source poor enough quality that I should go back and remove it where it was added in the past few days? Kimen8 (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kimen8, I don't know the book at all, but undergrad text-books are rarely the WP:MEDRS sources we require. I have requested page protection of Diabetes at WP:RPP. Looking at the revision history of Diabetes, in the last 29 hours, there have been 5 brand new accounts, which have only edited that article, all of which have ref-spammed that text-book. Which other articles are they attacking? - Arjayay (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi again Kimen8. Diabetes has now been semi-protected for 3 weeks and I have cleared the only other spamlink I could find, which was at Cystic fibrosis‎. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Bear with me because I have to go through my contributions to try to find them. Some of them have been copyvio-revel'd so I can't be certain on some of these, but:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

I'm no good with Advanced Search but something along the lines of checking for Indraprakash Building (has been included in some of their refs) and insource:"|last=Khurana |first=Indu" should bring up some results, but it doesn't seem to. I know that this book was referenced a good bit in the past few days, because I obtained a copy for my library a few days ago and have been cross-referencing when I find it used so as to confirm no copy-pasting.

Kimen8 (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the additional ping, but there seem to be more similar undergrad sources being put in as well, e.g.

• [7]
• [8]

Several are published by "Jaypee Brothers Medical" (or variously, Jaypee, Jaypee Brothers) publisher.

If there is an issue with general undergrad med textbooks, there are plentiful instances of those, published by Jaypee Brothers Medical, to be found:

• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]

&c. (a search for insource:"jaypee brothers" turns up 343 results, obviously some of which will be false positive, but it gives a suggestion as to how much this publisher's undergraduate textbooks are in use).

Thank you for your attention.

Kimen8 (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Kimen8 - there seem to be some very old additions by that author, such as this one from 2012, but that was for "Textbook of |Medical Physiology" whereas the recent spate of ref-spamming has been for "Medical Physiology for Undergraduates". I have the author, both titles, and the user contributions of the recent spammers (although they all seem to be single-use "throw-away" accounts) in searches. We will have to see if it re-starts - please let me know if you do find anything - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I did stumble across this in an open tab from a couple days ago, Deltoid muscle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (book).

Can you help me figure out how to determine if a(n undergrad) textbook counts as a WP:MEDRS tertiary source? Thanks. Kimen8 (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kimen8, I am not an expert on WP:MEDRS (I only became involved because I spend some time chasing spammers) and I have a further disadvantage in that I do not have, nor have access to, a copy of the book. The fact that it is an old book, written for undergrads, and that all mention of it has been revision deleted from the Diabetes article, appear to go against it, but I don't know the reputation of the author, or the publisher.
I suggest you follow the suggestion in the final paragraph of the lead of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

"See the reliable sources noticeboard for questions about reliability of specific sources, and feel free to ask at WikiProjects such as WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Pharmacology."

Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll head there for some more info.

Just as an aside, here are more books, mostly (all but one?) from Jaypee Brothers, and undergrad textbooks, being added by similar authors. Some are old, but some are from that end-of-march rush they did. I'll drop them here for now and then head to the noticeboard/project pages.

I would note that some Jaypee brothers content seems perectly fine, such as this "Indian Academy of Pediatrics Guidebook on Immunization".

• B D Chaurasia — Human Anatomy (book)

• [15]
• [16]

• D M Vasudevan — Textbook of Biochemistry for Medical Students (book)

• [17]
• [18]

• M N Chatterja — Textbook of Medicinal Biochemistry (book)

• [19]
• [20]

• ? — Textbook of Preventative and Social Medicine (book)

• [21]
• [22]

Thanks again for the help. I care greatly about quality of sources but also try not to be overzealous. Kimen8 (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi fellow Wikipedians. I'm sorry to be chiming in late on this discussion. These are not spammers nor bots. They are early medical students engaged in a Wikipedia-editing assignment in a course in a medical school in India. Hence the undergraduate medical text many of them are sourcing, as well as the fact that the majority of them are new Wikipedia contributors. Note that this course is not sponsored by Wiki Edu-- instead we are using the WMF labs dashboard. You can find the pages students are contributing to, as well as the training modules we required of them here. I apologize for the confusion-- I'm working closely with their faculty to ensure students don't plagiarize. I will step up efforts at encouraging them to run their suggested edits through some kind of grammar or prose tool to improve language consistency. Sorry again and thanks for ensuring Wikipedia's accuracy! AminMDMA (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Clear the doubt

Hi @Arjayay , I need to ask something according to the WP:RAJ , sources of Raj Era , Archaeological Survey of India and books printed by local publications are not reliable as these books follow the same main sources i.e. Raj Era , so I removed the citations and the stuff which includes these sources but edits are reverted by other user and I also found some articles which are using these sources which are locked. Below are the pages which are using Raj Era sources and the current version is live :

1. Bahun (my edits were reverted when I removed the Raj Sources)
2. Kannauj (my edits were reverted when I removed the Raj Sources)
3. Brahmin : In this article Raj Era books are used like Sherring, Matthew Atmore (1872) citation no 28 , 28 & others , Chaturvedi, Shyam Lal (Rai bahadur) (1945) similarly the citations no 10 & 11 took their references from the same books by repeating those in new book as usual print year not of Raj Era but the source is. Prominister (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Prominister, WP:RAJ links to User:Sitush/CasteSources, which is a user-page. As it says at the top "This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines".
However, what that page does do is discuss, and link to, previous discussions, such as at the WP:RSN, where consensus has been set on several items. There are also some useful links on User:Sitush. Unfortunately, Sitush has been unwell for some time, and edits very rarely these days, but if you have any specific questions, you could ask on his talk page, which has 473 page watchers, 21 of whom have visited recent edits, so you may well get a reply from a page-watching editor. Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay thanks , I will ask this on his talk page. Thanks for the guidance. - Prominister (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)