User talk:Wddan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Information icon 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[edit]

Information icon 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. Yoshi24517Chat Very Busy 15:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)