User talk:CindyRoleder

Welcome!


Hello, CindyRoleder, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
 * Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Hello, I'm Widr. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Eleonore Baur have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Widr (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jim1138 (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

What's missing

 * Please explain in the wp:edit summary why you are removing information, especially wp:citations.
 * Please cite sources. See above. wp:verifiability is very important on Wikipedia.
 * Please communicate. Simply ignoring, then repeating mistakes is not a good idea.

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

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. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please avoid redirects
It is best to link directly to an article and avoid routing through a wp:redirect. For instance, Agnostics and Agnostic is a redirect to Agnosticism and atheists or atheist rejects to atheism. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add a summary to your edits and also discuss disagreements with editors on the "Talk Page" of the article you are editing
Hi CindyRoleder, I see you are new to wikipedia. Welcome!

I see you have been involved in the Demographics of atheism page and that you edits have no edit summary. Please always add a summary to your edits so that other editors have an idea of your intent when you make an edit. Me and another editor, User:Pepperbeast, have reverted a few of your edits because you have no summary.

Right now, you are making a few disruptive edits on the Demographics of atheism page and I think we can reach a compromise, but you need to discuss your ideas with other editors in the "Talk Page" of the article, found here: Talk:Demographics_of_atheism. Each wikipedia article has a "Talk Page", it is in the upper left hand corner tab of any wikipedia article, where editors discuss disputes and reach a consensus before proceeding to make edits that others disagree on. Please discuss your ideas there and reach a consensus before making further edits on that article.

You may not be familiar with how wikipedia works, so I am attempting to help you out. Hopefully this helps you have a good experience here. Another editor, in the section above, has noticed the same behavior and even has felt the need to block you. Please familiarize yourself with common editing practices so that this does not happen to you.

Feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The latest edits, you have made are unexplained. Please use the talk page to discuss since you are now being disruptive and may get blocked if you do not follow wikipedia protocol.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Maltese records in athletics
Hello. Please explain your edit/remove of content. Thank you.Montell 74 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Religion in Germany does not have an edit summary.&#32;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. Thanks! Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Caution about edit warring at Irreligion
You are risking a violation of our policy on WP:edit warring. From April 5 through April 11 you have removed a reference called 'fowid' from this article about five times, while never leaving an edit summary or a talk comment. You are expected to get consensus for any changes that may be controversial. Trying to win by repeatedly reverting is viewed very dimly by administrators. You are also risking sanctions by never leaving an edit summary. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I had to revert your latest edit because you added a reference to cars! That does not pertain to the article, so why did you add it? You have been blocked before for not reaching a consensus on your edits on the Talk page and for not leaving any edit summaries for EACH edit. Editors look down upon this type of behavior since it does make the edits (you make quite a few each time back to back) look suspicious. It seems you are still engaging in an edit war since the other editor who disputed your edits did leave a response on the Talk page of the Irreligion article and you have not attempted to settle the issues there. You really should follow wikipedia practices or you will be blocked again for edit warring and disruptive editing., this editor is still not following wikipedia policy and practices. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Irreligion
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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:. 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. You continued to revert the article after my warning. A complaint about warring on this article was filed at Requests for page protection. You are expected to wait for consensus if you make a controversial change and it is reverted. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have extended your block to indefinite due to continued warring at Irreligion after your first block expired. (Beginning on April 13, you made three more removals of the 'fowid' reference, which is the same issue that led to your first block). Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced that you will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. See WP:GAB for how you can post an appeal on this talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have extended your block to indefinite due to continued warring at Irreligion after your first block expired. (Beginning on April 13, you made three more removals of the 'fowid' reference, which is the same issue that led to your first block). Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced that you will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. See WP:GAB for how you can post an appeal on this talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Germany data
The claim that only 34-36% of Germans are non-religious on the German Wikipedia is based on membership not on actual belief and if you continue reading through the Religion in Germany article both in the German and even the English Wikipedia it clearly states that non-religious people in Germany make up at least 55% and the most recent 2014 WIN-Gallup International Association Poll has also confirmed that at least 59% of Germans are non-religious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingKicks (talk • contribs) 15:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

SPI
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/CindyRoleder. Thank you.  S A 1 3 B r o  (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)