User talk:FrankCesco26/Archive 01/

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Religion in Belgium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orthodox. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Iryna Harpy 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. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
Please read WP:DTTR. Your warning was not prompted by good faith, but was intended as retribution, further attested to by the unwarranted response to another user's query. I have understood your content changes and numerous additions of pie charts to have been made in good faith, and I apologise for having reverted a couple which are grounded in what the actual sources say, but you must pull back from being overenthusiastic and making unilateral decisions as to which sources are represented and which are WP:UNDUE. Talk pages are the venue for discussion, so please follow WP:BRD in future. Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Religion in the European Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EU27. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

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 User:DatGuy but the article Religion in Russia needed newer data than 5-years-old data. The user Wddan continues to revert new changes and doensn't understand that he's edit-warring. He reverts every data he doesn't like (WP:IDONTLIKETHAT) and I only reontroduce data. He also think that I have multiple accounts and he accused User:Отрок 12 and User:Jobas to be my multiple accounts only becouse we go against his reverts.FrankCesco26^Talk_Contribs 11:58, 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FrankCesco26 reported by User:DatGuy (Result: ). Thank you. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:42, 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)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turks in Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unaffiliated. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Religion in the NL

Hello, admin action has been requested. No need for more reverts. JimRenge (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

See what he wrote in the request for protection... I wanted to reply as this ':The truth is that User:31.151.113.246 makes vandalism on the page imposing data that didn't reached consensous. Colors don't matter... "honeydew" is the main color for irreligion in all of pie charts. Protection is needed for disruptive editings by the IP-user. Stop edit warring.' but I can't, IDK why. FrankCesco26 21:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:vandalism, his edits are problematic but clearly not vandalism. The best thin you can do is explain your reasons for the revert on the talk page. Further reverts make no sense at all. Let the admin decide. JimRenge (talk) 21:36, 24 May 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FrankCesco26 reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: ). Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Religion in Italy

Please consider replying to the complaint about your edits: WP:AN3#User:FrankCesco26 reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: ). It appears that you continue to revert to your own preference, regardless of what others have said to you on the talk page. You are risking a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Religion in Italy. 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.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Religion in France and other articles

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The previous one-week block was due to a report here at AN3 in June. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston, if you're going to block User:FrankCesco26, User:Wddan should also be blocked for edit warring to an equal or even greater extent. They have not followed WP:BRD and have instead restored their preferred version. User:FrankCesco26 was using the article talk pages and seems to have only tried to restore the original version before User:Wddan's problematic edits. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desmay (talk • contribs)

User:Desmay, consider opening an WP:RFC at Talk:Religion in France or use WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston: Desmay's personal view of my edits is false and bad-faith: in my intermediate edits, for instance this one (see the edit summary), I integrated the sources brought by FrankCesco26 with those that I introduced and he wanted to remove at all costs. Future revisions of the articles shall reflect this and the new developments in the talk-pages of the pertinent articles. In the linked edit summary note that the source named "2016IFOP", which FrankCesco26 falsely claimed I removed, was rather correctly renamed "2016Montaigne", since it is a research of the Institut Montaigne.--Wddan (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston:You should see both faces of the medal. The two sources were too different to be integrated, the only thing they had in common was the year. Desmay said the truth, I was only restoring the last consensual revision since Wddan's edits removed all other sources without citing any reason, forcing the reader to trust the source he liked. I used the talk pages to explain the unrealiablity of the Ipsos Global Trends (and later I had consensous by three people, here), but Wddan reverted the pages twice, without giving a reason and accusing me of WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. He forced me to revert again the pages and infringing the 3RR, later he reported me; but I didn't make anything in bad faith. I want to add that the survey was made by the Institut Montaigne and the IFOP (as you can see at page 7 of the report.). In the last revision (the most consensual one by most of people) I integrated your source here.FrankCesco26 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that there was no "consensual revision" prior to my edits, and apart from the other fact that my edits did not encounter the objection of other users who edited the same articles in the meanwhile; my edits did not include merely that Ipsos data but other material including pictures, grammar and prose corrections, etc, and we are not talking merely of "Religion in France", but also of "...in Belgium" and "...in Sweden", where the removal of Ipsos was undue, since there were no substitutes of the same or higher value. And besides this, the outcome of the discussions is that the Ipsos survey is less reliable than others as it represents just a part, though a major one, of the populations: the outcome, which by the way came after the opening of the case on the administrators' noticeboard, is not that Ipsos data are utterly unreliable and should be erased completely, but rather that they are secondary and should not stay in the lede.--Wddan (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

As EdJohnston cited in the list of the motivations of my ban, you not the sole judge of what sources ought to be used in Wikipedia articles. You didn't have the right to remove all of other sources without consensous.

I didn't "erased completely" your source, I integrated in the article as secondary source, with the consensous of other Wikipedians, here.

Also, "my edits did not encounter the objection of other users who edited the same articles in the meanwhile" is not consensous, and it's obvious, since there wasn't an wide research on the sample; in fact when I found out in the information page of the survey that the sample excluded the over-64 population, I had the consensous of three people, Nillurcheier, Erp and JimRenge (as you can see here).

Did you have any consensous in removing 17 and more sources (I made the comparision from the last revision before your changes, note in particular this edit and the given motivations)?

Did you made a section in the talk page to seek consensous before making a so drastical change (as I did in the Religion in Italy talk page, discussing the change of only one source, and later I got banned)?

Did you explain your three reverts (as I did with logical observations, not unfair use of WP:IDONTLIKETHAT) in the page Religion in France(so you also infringed that rule, but I didn't report it since I think that in the discussions you win talking, not eliminating those who do not think like you)?

The last thing I want to say, is that you blocked me also for removing the reports from CIA and the USA depart. of state without an agreement, but actually I had an agreement since Wddan said that reports aren't sources in his message of the 08:41, 18 September 2017 here.

Then, EdJohnston I understand my ban, but I think that, as Desmay also said, also Wddan should be blocked for his behavior and the same things I got blocked for.FrankCesco26 (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You say: "I didn't "erased completely" your source, I integrated in the article as secondary source, with the consensous of other Wikipedians, here." I respond: You introduced back that source, and a lot of other edits I made, after the edit-warring and after I opened the case on the administrators' noticeboard. You are playing and messing-up with the chronology of events, and this is enough.--Wddan (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You made the same for the convenient "merging" you made, and before making that addiction I seeked for consensous. When I had the Nillurcheier's agreement, I introduced it back as a secondary source. I am not playing, and I you can also check with the chronlogy, how many sources you removed without consensous. I want to point up this edit you made, saying that you removed about 15 sources becouse according to you were "old, report-of-report, unreliable, confused data" with the consent of no one.FrankCesco26 (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

FrankCesco: We don't aim for having a bunch of arguing people each of whom is making claims of consensus while continuing to revert one another. We aim for a single talk page discussion where the participants express their agreement to a common solution. (An WP:RFC is one way to do this). If people still disagree, an outsider such as an admin can be asked to sum up the opinions and state which version has the most support. All this ought to happen without any of the participants reverting the article. The final version that gets the most support should then be permanently installed in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017 abuse of checkuser request

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wddan (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Let the admnistrators decide if that is "abusive" or not. I think that you did a very uncorrect use of sockpuppets, you used them only as retribution against the sources you didn't like, insulting, provoking, ridiculing and discrediting me.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Warning: Stop swamping articles with poor-quality small survey data from market agencies

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 filling articles with poor-quality small survey data, especially when there is solid official data as in the case of "Religion in Austria", resulting in an undue WP:WEIGHT given to such data which in most of the cases comes from market agencies.--Wddan (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

---

This case pertaining to Religion in Denmark is even more emblematic of the problematicity of such surveys. Eurobarometer 2012 result for Lutherans was 64%; ISSP 2015 result for Lutherans was 79%, a difference which is not worthy of representation since it means a significant difference in methodology. Do you realise that results may change drastically based on whether those 1000 surveyed people are from cities or countriside villages, one region of a country rather than another? (in certain countries there are entire areas or small villages which may be of a different religion than the others). These small surveys are not in any way comparable to thorough demoscopic analyses (for instance, Arena Atlas of Russia), and they should not be given WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in any case.

This is my last attempt to persuade you about what means a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE. The next step will be to establish a consensus or even a policy for ousting completely such kind of poor-quality sources from articles about religion demography.--Wddan (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you aware that a difference in the phrasing of the question can change the results? Also, for the problem of the village or cities, there is a process named "weighting" that means that the results are weighed in factors like the regional distribution, the ages the income and many other, I weighed both of the results before I added them. Both Eurobarometer and International Social Survey Programme are very reliable sources coming from excellent research centers. The results of both of them are published in the GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences website, largest German infrastructure institute for the social sciences and one of the most important social science institutes of Europe.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month 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) 06:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Request of the revision of the block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FrankCesco26/Archive 01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Before making my reverts, I seeked for consensous in here and here trying resolve the issue in a democratic way, but none of the users answered me. So I tried to send a message in the talk page trying to resolve the issue discussing and not with reversals, but he continued to revert the page in the while, using a version of the article that wasn't supported by the source itself[1], so I tried to make him understand that raw data is not nationally representative, since it's not weighted, but he completely ignored the matter twice, in the user talk and in the talk page of the article. The user played with the general consensous regarding the inclusion of the unanswered, but that consensous wasn't for using unweighted data, since survey data must be weighted to be reliable. I tried only to respect the source listed, I didn't revert the page with bad faith.

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit warring, and you are not allowed to do that even if you are right. When there is a disagreement over content, you need to gain a consensus by discussing it at the article talk page - and it is not sufficient just to start a discussion and then go back to edit warring before you have achieved a consensus.

What is especially concerning here is that you should already know this, as this is now your fourth block for edit warring, yet you are still trying to get yourself unblocked by arguing that you were right about the content.

If you can not, or will not, learn and understand the policy described at WP:EW, then you will not be unblocked. In fact, if you do the same again in the future, your blocks will escalate, and you will probably soon get an indefinite one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• I should add that if you can not reach a consensus (which often happens when there are only two people arguing about it, as in this case), you should follow the dispute resolution steps explained in WP:DR. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Religion in the Netherlands and Religion in France

FrankCesco26, I have received your mail. I am well aware of the pov pushing/disruptive editing and socking on the Religions in The Netherlands article. The insinuatiation presented at the wikidata administrator noticeboard [1] is funny. Religion in France: I think we should present demographic data including the percentage of people who refuse to answer. Their religious views/adherence is simply unknown and can not be calculated. The idea that the religious views of people who refuse to answer are the same or similar to the "answering group" does not appear plausible. JimRenge (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@JimRenge: It's ok to leave the unanswered if the sources leaves them but in the case for France raw data is not weighted. The final data takes in account only respondents, but it's well weighted so nationally representative. Regarding the user, yes its report is funny, but if he continues I think that it can be reported. --FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Block bypass in October and November

You probably already know that by editing with the following IPs while your main account is blocked you are violating the sanction itself and therefore the rules of Wikipedia (WP:BP). Yet it appears that you are doing this intentionally. Please stop. I opened an investigation case regarding this issue.--Wddan (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• 5.168.232.0
• 5.168.216.49
• 158.148.222.159

MSGJ, Boing! said Zebedee: Just wanted to make you aware of what is going on, being you involved in the block measure.--Wddan (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's him for sure, thanks for the ping. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Block extended

Your block has been extended for a period of 1 month from today, because you were evading your current block by editing logged out. While this account is blocked, you the person behind it are not allowed to edit at all, logged in or out. I have not escalated the block to, for example, 3 months, but you run the risk of that happening if you evade the block again.

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 ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I didn't know this rule, I thought that good-faith edits were allowed, like changing some colors to make them more visible. I thought that only doing things that are prohibited from the rules were worth a ban... Please remove my additional 8 days, I wasn't aware of this very rule. Give me a chance, I won't edit Wikipedia anymore until my unblock.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

If you were allowed to make good faith edits, then why would your account be blocked to prevent all edits? Why would it be better for you to make them anonymously rather than under your account? Anyway, given your commitment to abide by the block, I have reset the block duration and it will now expire on 26 November. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding.--FrankCesco26 (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, FrankCesco26. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religion in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallup (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) 09:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)