User talk:Casperti

Your recent editing history at Pashtuns shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be correct, but our articles can never be used as sources. You need to find specific sources making your case. Also, if sources contradict each other we may have to include both views. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Referencing for beginners. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Smjg, Sorry by accident I havent filled it yet. So it is indeed my fault I left it Blank.

I saw a redirection from Sheen Khalai to Kakar Pashtun tribe. Sheen khalai does not refer to a tribe, the person who did that does not know the meaning of it. 

Sheen khalai literally means Blue face dots (which Pashtun and Baloch wear all over the Afghanistan area). It does not refer to any specific tribe. How can I can change that and how should I tackle that? Should I make a new wiki page for it?Casperti (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes some sources do describe Afghanistan as being located on the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, and Western Asia. But we should be consistent and most reliable sources include it in

It depends on which source you use. Afghanistan is also a full member part of

CAREC. So is Pakistan's (Only KPK and Balochistan provinces) and China's (Only) Xinjiang

province. CAREC stands for Central Asian Regional Economic Cooperation. Besides that, Iran also applied for SAARC full membership but cannot be accepted due to the sanctions. Both Afghanistan's and Iran's applications were for Transregional cooperation.

According to SAARC Officials, Afghanistan is actually a Central-Asian country that has joined SAARC. Their application created a lot of debate among SAARC officials. the membership was seen as a problem at first sight. So even SAARC's admits Afghanistan's cultural and geographic ties with other Central-Asian countries. Here is the link for that: The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC): An emerging collaboration architecture Page 33-35 Casperti (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough evidence that Afghanistan is called both Central-Asia and South-Asia. There are more trans-regional countries. All of them note both regions. Therefore, other Wikipedians already had a consensus (I was not part of that) for South-Central Asia a long time ago. I do not see a problem in this, as Afghanistan is cleary called Central Asia and South Asia, depends on who you ask. Nobody can ignore that fact.

The Afghan Government and SAARC see Afghanistan as Central Asian but they cannot be called fully Central Asian due to the Interpretation of Soviet Central Asia. Many people want to see it as Central Asia (especially most Afghans themselves) but the best option is South-Central Asia like we had. Casperti (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more sources of Afghanistan in Central Asia: ec.europa.eu/afghanistan_en EU Cleary states that Afghanistan is both AP News CentralAsia Independent UK CentralAsia Central Asia-Caucasus Institute Geographica World Atlas & Encyclopedia. Random House Australia: Milsons Point NSW Australia. Learn about the Central Asian country of Afghanistan https://iis.ac.uk/research/central-asian-studies https://harriman.columbia.edu/programs/central-asian-studies Times of Central Asia

This was a quick list but it can be carried on. Being Central Asia or South Asia is just general info. There is no extensive research about this, it is just general information of a country. Again it depends on who you ask or which website you visit, Which institution you ask etc. There is nothing evil/bad/wrong in calling this country both as people did.

Can you re-add "graveyard of empires" on the opening section (where it mentions about military campaigns) and delete the sikh invasion, (because they never could pass through khyber and never invaded whole or mainland afghanistan. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:1D78:A5CD:9E59:3D17 (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits [1][2] were not minor changes. Don't label such edits as minor in the future. If you have sources or current cited references support your changes, you need to discuss them on talk page and get a consensus because the current revision is the accepted one. --

There is no consensus on talk page so avoid restoring your edit(s).[4] When there is an active discussion on talk page, you should wait. That's all. --

talk) 09:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Wario-Man: Checked it, you were right. In middle Persian, they also used Farvardin as word and spelling. Oops my bad..Casperti (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazaras

 Number 1; in this page, on the right label "total population", where is said "8 million", can you change it to 6 or 5 million? Because the following numbers under the "Regions with significant populations" won't be 8 million when all the numbers added up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazara_diaspora

Number 2: in this page, on the right side that have a label called "total population", where is said "Approximately 25% from total population More than 8 million", can you change the percentage 25% to 33% and change the number 8 million to 6 or 5 million? The source it cited only indicate an estimate between 5 to 8 million. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan

 Number 3: in this page, under the label "Ethnic Groups", in the first picture which have a label called "Ethnic Groups of Afghanistan (summary)" in the picture, can you delete this picture? Because the pie chart data in the picture is wrong compare with the chart called "Ethnic group Library of Congress 2008 estimate" in this wikipedia page provided.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Afghanistan

 Number 4: in this page, under the label "Ethnic groups", look at the right direction, in the second picture which have a label called "Ethnic Groups of Afghanistan (summary)" in the picture, can you delete the picture? Because the pie chart data in the picture is wrong compare with the chart on the left that have "Recent estimate" in this wikipedia page provided.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan

Number 5; in this page, under the label "Ethnic groups", look at the right direction, in the second picture which have a label called "Ethnic Groups of Afghanistan (summary)" in the picture, can you delete the picture? Because the pie chart data in the picture is wrong compare with the chart that have "World Factbook / Library of Congress Country Studies (recent estimate)" in this wikipedia page provided.

Therefore,number 1 and 2 is basically about the number and percentage change, while number 3,4 and 5 is just about delete the same picture that have the label called "Ethnic Groups of Afghanistan (summary), this picture is over exaggerated the ethnic group composition data of Afghanistan.

if you want me to provide sources. i have:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131014200908/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html?countryName=Afghanistan&countryCode=af&regionCode=sas&#af
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/ethnic-groups-of-afghanistan.html
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Louis_Putterman/Appendix-Asia.pdf

Sorry about inconvience — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.118.50 (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP address @198.178.118.50:, Thank you for letting me know. I checked the Hazara related pages. You were right, in fact the sources given already showed estimates of between 5-8 million. The ethnic maps and charts will be changed soon. Some of them were even copyright pics. Again thanks for letting me know. Casperti (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful regarding the words you choose in your edit summaries. I'm referring to this edit. Why is that vandalism? I agree the article is better without that image at the top, because it doesn't represent the article as a whole as well as the infobox image. However, calling edits vandalism that aren't vandalism (malicious intention to deface or destroy) is a form of personal attack. This is intended to be helpful going forward, because I have full faith you have the best intentions, so please don't consider this some ominous administrative threat, it's not. All the best, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@78.26: Hello 78.26, thank you for letting me know. That was a mistake made there [5] my intention was this edit of the same editor. He was 4 times reverted for that. You can check it. it was that actual edit that was "Vandalization". Let me know if you saw it and I will keep an eye on your tip/hint. Thank you and have a nice one Casperti (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to

@Kansas Bear: Was my bad by accident check it now, I saved it instead of show preview to work further on it. Check it now it's all good now. 23:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Casperti (talk)[reply]

Looks good. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why you and that other editor did this?! e.g. editing old discussions/sections and breaking the order of old sections?! Why not opening a new section on the bottom of page and moving your stuff there? You could reverted their edits on talk page or moving them to a new section before the discussion. --

I have already fixed that mess. No need to do anything. --

talk) 05:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I am writing this to request you that this page be deleted. This has only become platform for propaganda. Can you please do something with regards to this issue? Raise this matter? Can you take this matter up at the relevant forums here on WP?The theories mentioned Theories of Pashtun origin have already been discussed on Pashtuns. That page is only used for propaganda. Regards.

I will take a look at it, thanks Casperti (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm writing this message to you to draw your attention to activities of one of the users who goes by the name kami2018. This (kami2018) account engages in war edits. I have observed that whenever any user reverts his edits or makes changes to the edits he has made such as in the case Bangash or Ahmadzai (wazir clan) Kami2018 not only reverts them but also uses rather an aggressive tone in info bar. For example he made an edit to Ahmadzai (wazir clan) writing that '[this tribe] lives on border between Birman valley and Kurram valley' even though the source explicitly mentions that Ahmadzai were originally based in Birman valley. You can check the source by typing in Ahmadzai in the search bar & download the doc. You reverted that edit of kami2018. But this is one example of which you're aware. He has done the same to the page of Bangash tribe. According to the attached (Iranica encyclopedia) reference they were settled in gardez in Afghanistan until 10 CE. Afterwards they migrated to their current location in Kurram valley. But because it was changed by an IP citing the reason that the source mentions Gardez,(which it does, please look that up) and that 'Gardez' was removed by 'Saladin1987' (now a banned user), Kami2018 (who, it appears, previously operated under the username 'saladin1987') reverted the edit. Kami2018 continues to use WP platform to promote his own personal opinions, which are by any account biased and obviously nationalistic (anti Afghan and pro Pakistan). He randomly removes 'Afghan' "Afghanistan" and Iranic peoples" and other such terms related to Afghans/Pashtuns/Afghanistan from articles and inserts 'Pakistan' even if the doesn't mention Pakistan. Furthermore, many of his edits as I have checked are reverted and he has been warned already. I dont know who to reach out to so I'm writing here. (because I dont know the technical aspects of using WP which is why I haven't formally joined this community.) I request you to PLEASE look into this and take an action!

@203.135.47.93: I will take a look at it, thanks Casperti (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I wanted to bring this to your attention that currently above mentioned user is engaged in edit war with another user. Zakariya1978 is vandalising pages with the clearly indian nationalist objectives. Currently the issue has been discussed here.youre requested to chip in and add your opinion,I would've done it on my own, but I'm not sure the opinion of IP matters at all. Regards

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Zakaria1978_reported_by_User:Xerxes931 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.159.215 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abdul Ghaffar Khan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charsadda District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been

topic-banned from any pages or discussions related to Afghanistan-India-Pakistan

articles, broadly construed for a period of 6 months, with an appeal recommended in no less than 3 months

You have been sanctioned for

battleground

behaviour.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked

for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described

here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. El_C 11:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I saw it, all the big empires were deleted from the lead and made space for a kingdom that ruled few years the Kabul valley only which is actually a specific moment of history, I do not know why that person included that to the lead on "Cross-roads" but I cannot do anything. You can change it too if you think it is not right.--Casperti (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions and opinions on matters concerning Afghanistan are duly missed. More recently the page has gone through a lot of changes, with apparently, a high degree of nationalist historical revisionism from perhaps Indian origin editors who seem obsessed with Afghanistan and attempt to show AFG as nothing but a vassal state of "great" Indian-Hindu dynasties. More importance is being given to Bhuddism, and Hinduism on that page.

Your contributions are truly appreciated.

Thank you for your message. I have been blocked due to claims of Disruptive editing. Which is partly right because of the 3 rule revert that I violated. This trend is relatively new indeed if you look at older revisions of those pages; they were all "Normal" before 2018 and recently more things are added to it especially on Pashtuns and Afghanistan. Buddhism and Zoroastrianism are normal to be added because they were the 2 major religions. But yeah on Afghan related pages I cannot edit for a few months. I can make a dispute resolution so we can get 3rd party views and involvement, so non-Indian and non-Afghan editors can take a look at those problems. So we have a solution in a civil way --Casperti (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casperti, stop. Stop discussing

IPA, in any capacity on Wikipedia — "non-Indian and non-Afghan editors," really? That also includes AE. There will be no further warning. Thank you. El_C 00:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I did not know if that was even not-allowed but okay I got it @El C:. just a general question: Can I open a discussion on dispute resolution at least? That was my reference about ("non-Afghan editors" so like in uninvolved) Because I might be restricted but that does not solve anything so my question is can I open a dispute resolution. Does not sound with bad intention or anything Casperti (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casperti, no. The ban message is clear about it covering any pages or discussions related to Afghanistan-India-Pakistan articles, broadly construed. El_C 00:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casperti, I hope you will return to editing these pages once your ban period is over. I am strongly of the opinion that Pashtun and Afghanistan pages are being edited with obvious bias. Please have a look at Pashtuns. The page is absolute mess. Too much focus has been placed on 'Pashtuns/"Pathans" in Indian subcontinent (India & Bangladesh) than in the traditional homeland of Pashtuns. In fact all the source-d info was removed by Londonboy2002 and no one had any issue with that, while a discussion on inclusion of 'Hindu Pushtuns' into the article was turned into an absolute circus. Lets hope you back to making your valuable contributions to these pages.Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.50.91.238 (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to ask how you are doing, sad to not have you around here anymore, hope you celebrated a nice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zakaria1978 (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block

To enforce an arbitration decision and for topic ban violations, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

El_C 23:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khestwol. It's obvious that Casperti is using Xerxes931 as his meatpuppet since he is tbanned. Does this multiple account abuse warrant an indef block or at least an iban between both of them so that they don't team up to bias articles together? Xerces931 has already been taken to AN for being the problematic user[9]. To give you an idea of what Xerces931 is doing, he's also edit warring at the Hindu Kush page to get his etymology of "Hindu Killer" in the intro there, which Casperti tried to do in the past. Zakaria1978 عوامی نيشنل پارٹی زندہ باد (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:MEAT enforcement. I, however, have alerted Xerxes931 to the discretionary sanctions in this area, for which respective enforcement may follow. El_C 19:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling? I hope that's not what you are trying to do in the name of "I was keeping status quo" (whatever that means). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you undid my contributions to herat province district information. Please go and look through the source I have provided, there is a huge map there showing what I added to the page. Please in the future do not change the edits and label it as vandalism cause there is information with source. And regarding ghor province I also have a source for that if you want me to provide it for you (here it is: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-n4X9BrFFCsU/W_zl5kBsF7I/AAAAAAAAAWQ/YnO32b6g4Vw6YW-aPtmCELjcAaDB61m-ACLcBGAs/s1600/Ghor%2BSettlement%2BMap.png), thanks.1DHNK1 (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely

broadly construed

You have been sanctioned per a report on my talk page (diff). I don't know what you're thinking by repeating that 21,677 piece of SYNTH, even after it was explained to you by multiple participants at Talk:Pashtuns/Archive_20#Infobox that it was in error. Enough is enough, Casperti. You seem to have remained a burden on volunteer resources and a liability for this fraught topic area. We tried leniency once, now it's this.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked

for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described

here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. El_C 04:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

[10]

Would be grateful if you can share your insights on the change I have recommended

PashtoPromoter (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Your appeal has been declined

You have been sanctioned at this AE topic.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked

for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described

here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Ymblanter (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Whereas there was no formal consensus concerning the time you can appeal again, I would not recommend you to appeal this topic ban in the next 6 months.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to