Archive 03/2017-03/2018

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wddan ( talk) 22:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

As a result of this discussion you and Wddan 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) 13:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

That's fine, I can finally take a break. But this isn't the correct discussion tho. This was a report of me by Wddan. FrankCesco26 ( talk) 13:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Ah, alright. So just for the record, I was referring to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#The problematic behaviour of this user. De728631 ( talk) 15:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Is this you? I am quite sure it is, given the same geographic location and style (lowercase edit summary, grammatical errors). As I wrote in the talk page of the article, your justification for the removal ("or we add a chart for every survey or remove them all. we can't add charts for every survey we find in the internet") is based on the false assumption that the 2018 survey is random data found on the internet, when it is actually a study of two Catholic universities, St Mary's University, Twickenham and Institut Catholique de Paris, and is based on the European Social Survey, thus it represents excellent data. Moreover, it represents a different section of the population (the youth) and thus it represents data similarly to tables which show the % of religion adherents among different age groups in other articles ( this, for example).

Most articles are in a very bad state, with poor, incomplete, unorganised, unsourced content, content sourced with random unreliable sources from the internet, often written in poor language. The last thing that these articles need is the removal of well-sourced content.-- Wddan ( talk) 15:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes it is me, I though I was logged in my account. I only said that the data is ok, but it doesn't deserve to be in the pie chart in a section of only list of surveys,as there are other surveys in the same section and we can't make a pie for every of them. FrankCesco26 17:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC) reply

This removal was not a "retribution" (probably you meant "retaliation") for anything, and I actually was thanked by another user (Gabriel HM) when I removed it from the main article " France". Articles shoul not be overcrowded with pie charts.-- Wddan ( talk) 19:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Also, please use Turquouse next to DodgerBlue when there are no more than two shades of light blue, since DeepSkyBlue is extremely close to DodgerBlue.-- Wddan ( talk) 19:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Ok than add a line chart for it, don't leave the article without a visual representation of the data. DeepSkyBlue is the perfect for the "Other Christians". Turquaise is too similar to the Honeydew. FrankCesco26 ( talk) 19:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't know from what kind of device you are navigating, but Turquoise is a shade of light blue while Honeydew is near to white. DeepSkyBlue is not "perfect" if there are just two shades of light blue, and it is too similar to DodgerBlue. And no, I will not add a line chart. By the same principle according to which you have been removing pie charts from the "religion in..." articles, you can leave just the phrase to present the survey.-- Wddan ( talk) 19:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Then find a different shade of blue that isn't too whitish. Edit: this shade should be good: #8AB9F1 FrankCesco26 ( talk) 19:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Please avoid personal opinions when writing both articles and edit summaries. Per Talk:Religion in Bulgaria.-- Wddan ( talk) 09:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Sure, but please accept other people's contributions. FrankCesco26 ( talk) 12:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC) reply

re Religion in France -- 1000 cases is quite standard for a nationwide sample. That gives percentages like 40 percent = X, 10 percent = Y and 2% = Z. in this case IPSOS did not use subsamples, with higher margins of error. So its subsample of Y's and Z's are too small to be useful. However the overall full sample percentages are valid. In terms of public opinion polls around the world, "many surveys usually aim for at least 1000 cases" according to John Gray Geer (2004). Public Opinion and Polling Around the World: A Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 456. Rjensen ( talk) 13:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC) reply

I mean, that survey would be relevant if it represented the whole population but I still don't get why should we keep it in the article if it is based only to the online population. It's out of context. There are plenty of other surveys which are based on a higher sample and refer to the total population (for istance IFOP, Eurobarometer, Pew Research Center and so on) which would fit the article well. FrankCesco26 ( talk) 14:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC) reply

they use internet users so they can compare different countries. If you have a better sample for the whole French population, then add it in--don't just erase information. by the way for a sample size of 1000 out of millions of people, if group Z = 2% the 95 percent confidence level is that the true proportion is between one percent and three percent. Rjensen ( talk) 15:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Geographical distribution of English speakers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geographical distribution of English speakers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Interstellarity T 🌟 11:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Just to let you know that when adding a ping, like you did here, you need to update the timestamp in your signature as well - otherwise, a notification won't be triggered. See Wikipedia:Notifications#Mentions for an explanation. Interstellarity T 🌟 11:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks very much, I am not very used to those, will update now. FrankCesco26 ( talk) 11:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello, Frank. Please, would you be so kind to properly reference (link to) that exact PESOCCAA-corrected study in Religion in Spain? I'm not finding it anywhere in the list of studies currently referenced or elsewhere. Best regards, -- MaeseLeon ( talk) 23:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi, the link in the source redirects to the CIS databank where the SPSS dataset including the PESOCCAA can be downloaded. You download it clicking on the national dataset (the first redirect) and then on the "Fichero_datos" in the following page. The PESOCCAA is a specific weight of only this survey (called macrobarometro since it's based on a large number of observations, around 18.000). This weight consists in reporting the true population data into the respondents, allowing us to have a more equal representation of the respondents, that generally are concentrated into urban areas and underrepresented in the countryside and less urbanized regions. Normal CIS studies use a weight based only on the sex and the ageof the respondent, due to small number of observations (roughly 2000) the population weight cannot be used for these small surveys. Therefore, the macrobarometer with the PESOCCAA allows us to have the most reliable sets of data nationally but also on a provincial level; and it's the same I have used in the table depicting the religious affiliation by autonomous community. - FrankCesco26 ( talk) 14:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Greetings,

Requesting your visit to Draft:Intellectual discourse over re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia and article expansion help if you find your interest in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 17:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply