User talk:Æo/Archive 1b

Nickname: Wddan, years 2017–2018

Welcome!

Hello, Wddan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

April 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Murph9000 (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Hello, I'm FrankCesco26. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:FrankCesco26 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner.FrankCesco26, talk 13:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry DatGuy, but I have not reverted the page again after the edit of 10:06, 23 April 2017. FrankCesco26 did.--Wddan (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I know. It's a warning to not revert again, but to discuss it on the talk page. If any of you revert it once more, you'll be reported to WP:AN/EW. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

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. Thank you. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Religion in Russia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict

We had an edit conflict on Ukraine. I have incorporated your addition of the 2006 data. It is odd that the 2016 report uses 2000 and 2010 surveys but not the 2006 survey. I have no idea what the reason for this was.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Toddy1:: Great addition. It would be useful to introduce the same table also in the main article "Religion in Ukraine". Regarding the surveys, it is clear that the 2006 one is not part of the same series and was not conducted according to the same methodology; indeed, it is of a better quality. As you can read at p. 22 of the 2016 report, the 2016 survey was conducted on a small sample of ca. 2000 people, while the 2006 survey was conducted on a large sample of more than 11.000 people. Moreover, as you can read from the title, the 2006 survey was clearly a projection of the religious on the believers (Віруючим якої церкви, конфесії Ви себе вважаєте? — "Believers, which religion or denomination do you consider yourself (believing)?"), and the table has the breakdown of religious people on the total population and on the believers population. Moreover, here you can find the 2013 survey that has been added to those reported in the 2016 document (p. 29), but compiled in the same technical fashion of that of 2006. Survey fields are the same, but the 2013 survey was based on a small semple of 2000 people (like the 2016 one), and it was not projected on the total population. The title is: До якої релігії Ви себе відносите? — "Which religion do you consider yourself?" So, weighting the evidences with a bit of intelligence, I think that the 2006 survey remains the best to date (for sample solidity) and the 2000-2016 surveys published in the 2016 publication are raw data of those who consider themselves religious believers only.--Wddan (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the 2006 survey, please can you try to find some pdf files on it. I have seen three Razumkov Centre pdf files relating to the 2016 survey. They help build up an understanding and provide more data.

Page 29 2016 report compares survey results on % of different religions for different dates: 2000, 2005, 2010, 2013, 2014, and 2016. It is curious that they do not use the 2006 survey you found.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Toddy1:: I'll try the best to find some further information about the 2006 survey. At the moment the best source that I was able to find searching for more reliable infos about rel. in Ukraine is the 2016 report. You have done a better job by finding those further documents and details about the 2014 and 2016 surveys. Unfortunately, I have a very little understanding of Ukrainian. Iryna Harpy, instead, with whom I have recently conspicuously collaborated here in WP, has a far better understanding of the language and seems to have a close knowledge of the context of Ukraine, and also of the mechanics of surveys, since she has or had the opportunity to work within survey institutions. She insisted on keeping the 2006 survey as more reliable before I edited the page in the past week, and she raised some suspicion about the 2016 report since it is sponsored by the Council of Churches of Ukraine (by the way, I think that this could be the reason for the exclusion of the 2006 survey, which reported lower % of religious believers; I admit that I hardly believe in the accuracy of those surveys which show a large % of Orthodox, since they do not match the official breakdown of religious believers in Belarus, where they are 48%, and the most accurate surveys of religion in Russia, which show Orthodox at around 40-45%; it is also true that Ukraine, especially western, was less targeted by Soviet suppression of religion, so I could be wrong). Meanwhile, I think that the 2006 survey could be added to the page in a separate table.--Wddan (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

(1) I think we need to understand more about the 2006 survey.

(2) Ukraine is not Russia and not Belarus. The differences are very deep - as incidentally are the differences between Western Ukraine (where people speak the so-called Ukrainian language) and Eastern/Southern Ukraine (where people speak Russian, and have relatives who live in Russia, but are at least as much Ukrainian as the people from Western Ukraine).-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Toddy1:: I've not found anything additional about the 2006 survey, for now. However, I have found reports of the 2004, 2007 and 2008 surveys of the Razumkov Centre showing results similar to the 2006 one. Report this time is not from the Ukrainian Council of Churches but from the US Department of State. They clearly differentiate (1) unaffiliated believers, (2) affiliated believers with denomination breakdown, (3) unbelievers.--Wddan (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

In addition, look at this: POSRU 2016. It is in English and has a small sample (2400) like the small-sampled ones from the Razumkov.--Wddan (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

If you use the POSRU 2016 document, please bear in mind that it assigns oblasts to different parts (East/South/West/Centre) than the Razumkov surveys, which is unhelpful. In addition it talks about "Dnipro Oblast"; this is incorrect. When the Rada changed the official Ukrainian-language name for the city, they did not change the name of the oblast, or the airport, or the football club...-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That AN discussion

It's been closed, with a clear suggestion that both parties need to drop the stick now. So please drop it and move on. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw that discussion was closed. Thank you!--Wddan (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Warning: Stop reverting the article to a version that isn't supported by the source itself

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been 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 notice boards.
• 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

---

You are invited to desist from your WP:UNCONSTRUCTIVE editing style consisting in editing the data as your alike, as you did in "Religion in France", where you used data wich weren't supported by the source itself. You can't calculating the raw share of muslims by doing a subtraction becouse there is a variable in the questionary (that you can see here in French: http://imv3.labo83.com/ressources/pdfs/publications/questionnaire_enquete_institut_montaigne.pdf ) that is "Ne sait pas" (or Undecided, Don't Know and represents the 0.4% of the adjusted sample) wich is very different than "Refuse de répondre" (or 6% of the raw sample, it's removed in the adjusted sample). So a subtraction won't give you the right number of Muslims.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Who are you trying to deceive? You are talking about two different sets of data. And it is you who are reverting the article against the consensus about including the unanswered datum.--Wddan (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, my revision of the page had the consensous of the others, but you reinstalled your version without consulting anyone. Also from the questionary we can see that data hasn't been only adjusted but had four weights, wich I report here:

• sociodemographics criteria: age and sex
• socioprofessional criteria: work
• geographics criteria: region, size of the municipality, proportion of inmigrants
• civic criteria: nationality.

So, there weights are fondamental to make a survey data reliable, and only the data in the pie chart has the weights. Raw data is only a report on how respondents answered.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't find any discussion that established consensus for your version. On the contrary, there was a discussion that established consensus for keeping data containing the unanswered datum, which applies to my version.--Wddan (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yours was a very general and vague consensous, that hasn't to do with this specific case. I had consensous since Erp said that she was ok with my edits here and many users made edits over the mine. By the way, it was you that said that survey results have to be weighted before adding them in the articles, here. Raw data is also not weighted and thus is not nationally representative.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't talk about any weighting. We are not talking about Ipsos, and there was a consensus for using data containing the unanswered datum. And Erp is a she, by the way.--Wddan (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, since I saw that you were talking about weight, I thought it was statistical weight, by the way Erp reviewed my revision of the article, using final data, so I had consensous. Your consensous was general and not specific for this case, also raw data is not representative and shouldn't be used.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Religion in France. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Wddan. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop making desruptive edits in Religion in Bulgaria

You broke the three-revert rule in the Religion in Bulgaria article, reverting four times the same edit in more days. This can cause a report on the Administrators' noticeboard, and consequently a block, unless you restore the neutral POV version of the article. In particular, the edit war you made concerned the colour of the table for the unanswered people, which you want to be the same as non-religious people, despite the two categories are unrelated, considering that the religious affiliation question in the Census was optional and people were free to not answer independently from their religious affiliation. I suggest you to restore the DarkGrey color, or to adapt the colours from the Religion in Catalonia article's table, to stop this edit war. Thank you. --FrankCesco26 (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

April 2018

Stop edit warring. Do not ever edit war again. Avoid that behavior completely, because it will bring you no benefits and will result in blocks.

Use the article talk page whenever there is a content dispute. Do this 100% of the time.

Content disputes are not vandalism. Never accuse another editor of vandalism unless there is indisputable evidence of overt vandalism.

Please consider this a warning from an administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328: Then I expect the other party be treated equally. Besides, how do you classify the removal of sourced content if not as vandalic behaviour?--Wddan (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course, the other editor is also expected to comply with the same policies and guidelines as you are. But this conversation is about your behavior, not theirs. Please be aware that: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." Nobody at ANI thought that the other editor is a vandal, and everyone agreed that your behavior was a big part of the problem. You were told repeatedly that this is a content dispute, and the ANI thread was closed on that basis. That is how I classify it, as a content dispute. So, take a lesson away from that, and adjust your own behavior accordingly. Do not make any more false accusations of vandalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328: However, at WP:VAN I also read that vandalism is "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content ... without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view) ...". Even presuming the non-maliciousness of the edit and even assuming the good-faith of the user despite the previous episodes, there was a complete removal of some sourced content (see a more complete description here). Let's call it simply "removal of sourced content". Said this, I will not engage in edit wars and I will bring the cases to the talk pages.--Wddan (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

That phrase only applies if the clear intent of the removal is to wreck the encyclopedia. That is not the case here, as you have been told repeatedly by several highly experienced editors. I thank you for your commitment to talk page discussion and refraining from edit warring. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religion in France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wolfsheim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.) It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding minor edits

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Religion in the United Kingdom, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Changing "Not religious and not stated" to "Not religious" is not a minor edit, someone might be religious but choose not to state his/her religion, so the edit changes the meaning of the information thus it is not a minor edit. Changing values from a graph is not a minor edit because it is changing information from the article which may or may not match the source. Thinker78 (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thinker78: Thank you for the clarification, I did not read Help:Minor edit. However, note that my edit is right, since the black line now represents the "not religious" alone without "not stated", after this edit by FrankCesco26 which separated the two. When I first added the line chart, I summed together the two as it is in the table above, given that the distinction is available only for 2011. At the current state, the line chart does not represent the "not stated". It represented "not religious + not stated" until this version on 1 May; afterwards it represented only "not religious".--Wddan (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you add edit summaries to your edits so other editors don't think you are just changing stuff haphazardly.

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

As a result of this discussion you and FrankCesco26 are no longer allowed to edit religious topics broadly construed at this Wikipedia for a duration of 60 days. This includes article talk pages and user talk pages, too, as well as "good edits" like reversal of vandalism. You may appeal this sanction at the Administrators' noticeboard by opening a new thread. Please feel also free to read our Wikipedia:Banning policy. De728631 (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

De728631: Okay. However, I would have left the page open for discussion for a little more time, to allow people with whom I collaborated to intervene and since there have been developments elsewhere (User talk:Yoshi24517).--Wddan (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The consensus was clear cut and you had even been asked by another admin not to ping other editors. That is why any such "interventions" would not have been considered in the outcome of the discussion anyway. De728631 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

De728631: Honestly, I am not happy with the outcome of the discussion. I think that it was unbalanced and left many issues unresolved. After all, I was brought there under a series of pretexts that revealed themselves false (the removal of content, which was done by the other party himself, and the claim that I insulted), and the other party went on for the entire discussion with the ungrounded claim that I "messed up" articles (a WP:PA, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence..."). At one point Berean Hunter replied: "FrankCesco26, with part of your original complaint here being explained as misunderstanding, what are you exactly asking of the admins? What policies or guidelines has Wddan violated? (need diffs as clear evidence) It appears that you may have lost your patience in dealing with them but I'm not seeing anything other than you calling their behavior unacceptable.". The diffs were never put forward and therefore this point was never clarified, as the discussion verged entirely towards the vote for the topic ban. Said this, I will not appeal the sanction at AN by myself (if someone else wants to help opening it, it will be welcome).--Wddan (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I had written that the diffs were the same of the original paragraph of the report, nothing else. Stop this. FrankCesco26 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I highly recommend you two stop posting on each other’s talk pages and cease interacting with one another or this may end up going further south. Recriminations and accusations won’t help with the admin decision at this point. The goal of the admins is to avoid disruption to the encyclopedia, not determine who is right and who is wrong. Let it go as there is no doubt in the admins eyes that both were being disruptive. Canterbury Tail talk 00:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I never interacted with or evoked the other party who, instead, popped up here intimating me to "stop" discussing about my part of the sanction, with the sanctioning administrator; a thing which, according to policy, I can do, especially as I think that some issues were left unresolved and therefore require further investigation. The "original paragraph" of the report was precisely that which was dismissed as other evidence was requested, both on the AN and in the talk page of Yoshi24517.--Wddan (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I never saw any diffs presented by FrankCesco26 where Wddan called somebody "stupid", or "vandalism". Either way, both of you aren't allowed to edit the same topics. Find somewhere else to work on, cool off from each other, and you can return in 2 months. Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 15:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)