User talk:Factfinderrr

Welcome!

Hello, Factfinderrr!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, SerChevalerie (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hi Factfinderrr! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at South Asian Canadians that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Meters (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at South Asian Canadians, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Meters (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meters, noted, I will take care to cite my reasons for removal henceforth. I maintain my original position for my removal and I'd like you to restore the deletion. Pashto is incorrectly cited as a south asian language. Statistics Canada does not include Pashto in its scope of South asian languages. See: https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=1420413&CVD=1420466&CPV=16.07&CST=15052022&CLV=1&MLV=3. I'm happy to supply further sources as well. Factfinderrr (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored your removal of "Pashto". I agree that Afghans are not classified as "South Asian" by StatsCan and thus we don't' need to list Pashto.

Are you the same editor as user:The First Legionnaire? Meters (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Meters, Thank you so so much, for being fair and objective in your response I really appreciate it!! I'd like to also mention some other points:

1. I noticed you reverted some of my other edits for instance my addition of "persian" to the word "dari"- I added persian to "Dari," because dari is a dialect not a language. The article holistically, implies that dari is a language, when in fact it is a dialect of persian. The english equivalent would be me writing Canadian for everything, instead of "Canadian English," in this case Canadian being dari and english being persian. The articles first line also refers to the full name of dari being dari persian, therefore it is not inaccurate to call dari, dari persian. Dari would just be the shortened version. For clarity and accuracy for non persian speakers, thats why I chose to add persian to the abbreviated name.Can you restore the deletion?

2. I noticed you also reverted my edit to the dari proverbs book written by a US Navy captain. Given the casualties that Afghans have endured during the US- Afghan war, I thought it was unethical and in poor taste to highlight the works of a US army personnel on a page about Afghan culture. Thats why I replaced it with Rumi- an actual Afghan Poet, and a well renowned one. The Navy captains book is still included in the citation if someone would like to read other sources, but as for the main body I strongly believe a page dedicated to Afghan culture should showcase and highlight actual Afghans. Would you be able to restore this deletion, please?

3. No, I am not the First Legionnaire editor- but I have a request (sorry! I know this is so long already, and if you're still reading thank you!) When I read through the edit history of the south asian canadians article I too also noticed the back and forth between the legionnaire user and "thebritishasian." Thebritishasian user, has a pattern and history of reverting edits and spreading misinformation to align with their own personal biases. They consistently reverted the legionairres edits to that page, despite being given multiple citations that supported claims afghans are not south asian. It was only until I came and provided the Stats canada source that he halted his reverts- of only that page that is.

Thebritishasian then proceeded to go through my edit history and revert all the edits I had made, despite me painstakingly finding sources to substantiate my enhancements. They provided no sources to validate their reverts. Given their history of harassing editors, when they correct misinformation, I believe "thebritishasian"user is acting spitefully, and not in good faith. Their credibility and validity as an editor is cause for concern. I am not 100% versed in terms of use of being an editor, but surely their irresponsible behaviour is in breach and violation of terms of use? I can continue to go back and forth with reverting and undoing edits made by thebritishasian, however, to readers of these pages how will it look if these articles are being altered daily because of the persistent personal vendetta of one individual? Undoubtedly, the trustworthiness and credibility of the platform will become questionable. Is there a way for him to stop harassing editors, or put some sort of semi block to his edits where he cant edit pages pertaining to these topics given his evident biases? Factfinderrr (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^^correction the assailants name is "ThatBritishAsianDude", NOT "thebritishasian." Factfinderrr (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Factfinderrr i have been looking through your contributions and we obviously disagree on whether Afghans are South Asian or not, however this does not seem like a good reason to make baseless WP:NPA statements like this, i'm still assuming good faith while writing this. While due to the warnings of Meters i have realised that Afghans aren't included in South Asian Offical censuses in countries like Canada and the USA. Claiming Afghans aren't South Asian at all is just false, pinging @Meters here and multiple discussions like that have been conducted on the Talkpage of South Asia of which the conclusion has always been that it still is a part of South Asia. There are also multiple sources who say that [1] [2]. I also noticed how you keep using the terms Indian subcontinent and South Asia as interchangable, however the first term doesn't include Afghanistan while the latter does, which is why i reverted your edits on these pages: South Asian Diaspora and Culture of Asia. The South Asian diaspora page also mentions not al South Asians are Desi and that it is controversial. Besides this you deleted the Pashto language from the South Asian Canadian page claiming it is not South Asian, there is no indicator of what makes a language South Asian it could be Iranic, Indo-Aryan or Dravidian. Pashto is not only spoken by Afghans but also by Pakistanis [3], which is why i reverted only that edit and not the one removing Afghanistan. Apoligize for the long message hoped this would clear some things up, especialy since i hoped avoiding continious topics like these. ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ThatBritishAsianDude,

I firmly disagree that my complaint of you is “baseless,” and uphold my original assertion that you have historically not acted in good faith, and are continuing to not act in good faith in the present either.

Your editing history comprises of you reverting changes made by editors, to align with your own biases. Where an edit does not align with your agenda, you engage in a reverting war for months on end. Despite being provided with sources to evidence the original editors claim. This is further substantiated in your lengthy reversion of edits to user:The First Legionnaire. The last reversion you made to the SouthAsian Canadians article was on 30 June 2024.

It’s questionable that mere hours after my edit on 12 July 2024 you chose to revert my changes, and then proceeded to go on a reversion rampage through my contributors history.

On closer inspection, of your own contributors history what you did to me, you have also done to other users eg The First Legionnaire and is reflective of a consistent pattern of spiteful behaviour from you where you specifically choose to target edits to pages regarding Afghans.

It is glaringly obvious that you have these pages on watch, and where a user makes an edit you are swift to immediately shut them down.

Thankfully,

@Meters stepped in as a third Party to audit your behaviour, and give you a warning otherwise this would have been yet another months long dispute of the two of us reverting and undoing edits. In essence your reversion history and the hastiness of which you undo an authors painstaking edit, is undoubtedly evidence of you acting in bad faith, and violating the terms of use of this platform.

"While due to the warnings of Meters i have realised that Afghans aren't included in South Asian Offical censuses in countries like Canada and the USA."

It is unfortunate, that Meters had to step in to mediate your actions, where you have been told by multiple different users that Afghans do not belong in the SouthAsian Canadian category. This is cause for concern. Is Meter or a third party, required to step in and babysit your behaviour every single time? This is a waste of time and resources for Wikipedia, when we should be working to develop, enhance and ensure the information supplied on this platform is as accurate as possible.

It’s interesting that you perceive Afghans to be South Asian, when even “Britain,” does not classify Afghans as South Asia either, rather they are counted under “Asians,” in general, by the UK office of national statistics.

In fact none of the English speaking countries, classify Afghans as South Asian. Canadians- Central asian, US- “white,”Australia- central asian, UK and New Zealand- Asian. The only time the type of “Asian” that Afghans are specified as being are central asian- twice by 2 different countries. There is no mention by the statistical standards authority of these countries of Afghans being South Asian. Hence, it is more accurate to classify Afghans as central asian, as regarded by GOVERNMENT authorities.

"Claiming Afghans aren't South Asian at all is just false, pinging @Meters here and multiple discussions"

False. I’ve only replied to Meters twice, of which both times he has been the one to reach out to me initially. I feel harassed by you and am alarmed at your behaviour, that not only you chose to revert my edits TWICE but then went on my page to stalk my history where I was engaging with someone else. That is why I feel you urgently need to be addressed or suspended.

"There are also multiple sources who say that [1] [2]."

1. There are also multiple sources that state Afghanistan is in Central Asia.

2. Britaniccas article on Afghanistan states “Afghanistan, multiethnic landlocked country located in the heart of south-central Asia.,” i.e. the south of Central Asia or southern Central Asia. This is further substantiated in a following line “It is bounded to the east and south by Pakistan .” Meaning, it is bordered by South Asia/ that South Asia is to the Afghanistans “south.”

3. Regardless, the edits I made didn’t argue these points but were removals of inaccurate or vague information. In addition to me moving information to the Central Asia section- of which you blindly reverted too. Did you actually read the edits I made?

4. The image you reverted it back to, was a “modified version” of the original version which did not include Afghanistan- this is portrayed in the caption of the image once you click on it to download. My edit was a restoration to the original and ACCURATE version.

This is further evidence of you blindly reverting edits and continual pattern of failing to engage in good faith.

"I also noticed how you keep using the terms Indian subcontinent and South Asia as interchangable, however the first term doesn't include Afghanistan while the latter does"

The Indian subcontinent and South Asia are interchangeable terms, Afghanistan is moreso a central asian country, and does not fit the cultural, ethnic, historical composition of South Asia. Barring the dubious and inaccurate inclusion of Afghanistan, the subcontinent and South Asia are essentially synonyms.

"Besides this you deleted the Pashto language from the South Asian Canadian page claiming it is not South Asian, there is no indicator of what makes a language South Asian it could be Iranic, Indo-Aryan or Dravidian."

False, the indicator is Stats Canada.

The SouthAsian Canadian article, references south asians in Canada. If Canada does not classify Pashto as a South Asian language, then Pashto should not be listed. Again, despite being audited by a third party, having citation supplied by me and The First Legionnaire for months on end. You are continuing to persist with your own selectivity. If a user repeatedly fails to accept evidence, choosing to maintain their biases, how can they be a credible contributor to this platform? You are not acting in good faith.

"Pashto is not only spoken by Afghans but also by Pakistanis [3], which is why i reverted only that edit and not the one removing Afghanistan."

Again, if Stats Canada does not classify Pashto as a South Asian language, then it is is not South Asian. That means studies, demographics, patterns etc Pashtun Canadians would not be included in policies geared to south asians. Therefore it is redundant to include them in a category that does not represent them.

Many languages are spoken in countries that are abridged from their homeland. Pashtuns have historically been referred to as Afghans and originate from Afghanistan. Therefore Pakistani Pashtuns are a subset of diaspora. Diasporal groups do not determine the classification of a language. E.g Mandarin does not become a Germanic language, just because Chinese Americans are living in the US. This logic is validated by the fact that Stats Canada does not class pashto, as a South Asian language, but an iranic one.

"Apoligize for the long message hoped this would clear some things up, especially since i hoped avoiding continuous topics like these."

I don’t accept your apology. Your actions indicate insincerity, and your suggestion of you “hoping to avoid continuous topics,” is ironic given how you’ve yet again chosen to revert my edits and then subsequently try to bully me on my own page. If you do not cease in your repeated attacks, I will escalate this query further. Thank you.

sources

https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/census2021dictionary/variablesbytopic/ethnicgroupnationalidentitylanguageandreligionvariablescensus2021/ethnicgroupdetailed/classifications

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/media/3216

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/classifications/australian-standard-classification-cultural-and-ethnic-groups-ascceg

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/02/25/us/census-race-ethnicity-middle-east-north-africa.html

https://aria.stats.govt.nz/aria/#ClassificationView:uri=http://stats.govt.nz/cms/ClassificationVersion/mTd5SsI4Me5dMKf8

https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3VD.pl?Function=getVD&TVD=1420413&CVD=1420466&CPV=16.07&CST=15052022&CLV=1&MLV=3

https://www.cwis.org/2021/08/afghanistan-land-of-the-pashtun-confederation/ Factfinderrr (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Factfinderrr again i don't appreciate these WP:NPA, i suggest you read #6 of that page and avoid using words as "assailant". I get that your new here but It is alarming how personal you take these reverts since it is only about the content, i suggest you keep only discussing the content further in the discussion since that is how we work on wikipedia. Your usage of historical is also suspicious due to the similar edit history you and the First Legionnaire have. I also think you misunderstood why i pinged @Meters, i pinged him to show the explanation i gave for Afghans being South Asian had nothing to with you. You also say I am "harassing" you but trough talkpages of a user or a article we are supposed to come to a consensus, which is why i reacted here and you where the one mentioning me first.

Now further discussing the content, i never claimed Afghans weren't Central Asian and i already agreed with you on that most overseas cenusses don't inlcude it even though not al of those examples you gave have South Asian as a seperate category. The sources you continue to give don't explain the changes you made, since we are discussing Afghans in general not what those specific countries say i have already provided you whith sources that say that Afghans are South Asian and Central Asian. So again i don't have a problem with you adding Afghan content to Central Asian subjects, i do have a problem with you deleting any mention of them also being South Asian since you didn't give a source that says that. Which is why i reverted your edits yet again. There is also a difference between South Asia and the indian subcontinent as you can see: [4] [5]. So your claim of the terms being interchangable is wrong and you mentioning the indian subcontinent while editing something about South Asia is to. Your claim about Pashtuns not being pakistani and comparing it to a other ethinicity that migrates to somewhere is also wrong the pashtunistan and pashtun diaspora pages clearly mention pashtuns being indigenous to both Afghanistan and Pakistan. You are still claiming Afghanistan isn't South Asian i suggest you work it out on the talkpage of that article and see for yourself why it isn't. The Central Asia page doesn't even fully include Afghanistan. You also keep putting your sources in the edit summary, which is not how that works. If you want to change sourced content replace is whith a better one that passes WP:V where you also get consensus for. Have provided more sources than necessary at this point, some of which are part of the South Asia article it self, My regards ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Cinema of Central Asia, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Central Asia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mann Mann (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mann Mann, I firmly disagree with your assertion that my edits are "disruptive," nor do they fit the scope of what Wikipedia defines as "disruptive editing." Where applicable, I have cited sources and justified my edits, which as a whole are aimed at enhancing clarity and accuracy. In reference to the Central Asia article, the only thing I did was add information on Afghanistan. Afghanistan is mentioned numerous times throughout the article but yet it is negated from being mentioned in the cities of central asia section. Therefore, to maintain consistency, cohesiveness and accuracy of the article I included it there. Please explain how exactly is this unconstructive? Undoubtedly, it is an improvement on the articles subject matter and credibility. Nor was there a dispute. One user undid my changes and then I reverted them, with an explanation and citation. If they had retaliated again, then I would have taken to commenting on their talk page. However, as it stands escalated action at this stage was not necessary. As such, I also aim to revert your edit, as I feel I've been unfairly targeted. This is an area where I have extensive subject matter knowledge, that is why I have a focus on these articles, and feel I can add my expertise and value to these pages. Thank you. Factfinderrr (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you add something to an article, and someone else removes it, the WP:ONUS is on you to get WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page to include it. You do NOT keep readding it back in, this is called edit warring. As per WP:BRD you Boldly added something, you were Reverted, and as a result now you Discuss it on the talk page and attempt to gain consensus before it can be added back in. Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a "bold" addition, rather a maintenance of the status quo. The article referenced it throughout I was maintaining consistency by including the subject in a section it was missing from, but in all other sections was referenced. I believe the editors who are reverting are acting in bad faith after my discussion with them on the Talk page, can you help me please? There was a back and forth discussion with little discourse or engagement from the reverting party. I don't know what to do as the situation is stalemate and their behaviour has been unfair. What do I do- can i report them? Factfinderrr (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I make no comment on the content or motivations of any of the editors here. However the fact is you're trying to insert content into the article, and other editors are reverting you. You must obtain consensus on the talk page for the inclusion, this is the process. Canterbury Tail talk 13:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes but can you tell me what to do if an editor is acting in bad faith? Consensus isn't being reached because they are refusing to weigh my argument at all but rather link random wikipedia policies. Can you look over the thread please? As a third party you could provide a solution? Factfinderrr (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing to suggest these other editors are acting in bad faith, several of them are long standing editors in good standing. Yourself however have made 110 edits to mainspace of which 43 have been reverted to date. This is over a third of your edits. This suggests to me that you are perhaps missing the point and policies of Wikipedia. I suggest you familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines and follow them. At this point I believe you are acting in good faith, but your edit warring is currently block worthy. I am not blocking you right now as I see you have not, until my edit above, been pointed to our edit warring policies. However not you have and you are expected to follow them, just like all editors. However it is incumbent on you to understand our policies and guidelines and to follow them. So discuss this topic and obtain consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 13:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith is manifested on the basis of that ENTIRE thread in which multiple users have cited Afghanistan as Central Asian with EXTENSIVE sources yet continously they are rebuffed with no reason given or consideration of the argument posited. That is PRECISELY the definition of acting in bad faith. How is consensus ever going to be achieved when the opinions of a minority rebuff the facts provided by a majority? One user 3 years ago provided 20 CREDIBLE sources, and they were rejected. I provided 4 governmental sources (of which I can provide more) and I am too rejected without being provided valid reasons. This is blatantly unfair. They are not attempting to engage in good faith or active discourse. Why have my or other sources not been credibly onboarded? I assure you those reversions are instances of OTHER users acting in bad faith, as has been evidenced by an earlier thread on my talk page where a third party user even noticed this too. To clarify, what I mean by being rebuffed is that these editors do not provide counter sources or other authorities to dispute my or the other users claims. They mention the mere existence of other sources vaguely but fail to explicity cite or even mention what they are. Again this is completely unfair. What do I do next??? This must be rectified Factfinderrr (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Factfinderrr reported by User:Remsense (Result: ). Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 12:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Central Asia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Desi‎ 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt revert anything they were new edits with sources cited. Factfinderrr (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate: whether in whole or in part. Any removal of 'Afghanistan' is a revert, even if you happen to make other changes as well. MrOllie (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a revert is done by clicking on the revert button. Factfinderrr (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. But if you don't believe me for some reason (and you don't want to read WP:REVERT), feel free to ask for clarification at WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]