User talk:FlyingKicks

Concern about your edits at Irreligion

CindyRoleder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Irreligion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An editor has suggested on my talk that you are a sock of User:CindyRoleder who is now indefinitely blocked for edit warring. When I check the article history at Irreligion, I see that you too have removed the 'fowid' reference at Irreligion, perhaps in the effort to show that Germany is more irreligious than Sweden. This is something that CindyRoleder also did. You follow the pattern of CindyRoleder by never discussing your changes on talk pages. The two of you have both made edits regarding Malta. You may reply to this complaint if you wish; otherwise I am planning to go ahead and block you as a sock of CindyRoleder. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irreligion

For me it's not a problem at all to discuss my edits on talk pages and there's absolutely no need to block me or revert my edits because my edits are correct since the fowid reference regarding Germany is based on membership not on actual belief whilst other references regarding many other countries are based on actual belief not membership and there's certainly no way that for example Azerbaijan is more irreligious than Germany and even other reliable sources like for example the 2005 Eurobarometer Poll fully confirm that Germany has even more non-believers than Sweden.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingKicks (talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you make any more reverts at Irreligion you may be blocked, unless you get consensus first on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Germany data

I have no intention of making any more reverts at Irreligion but you must kindly understand that Germany must be at least 59% non-religious not 34% and I have never made any unsourced edits regarding Malta from any user either.FlyingKicks (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signing of posts

I'm honestly very sorry but I didn't know that I had to sign my posts in order for other users to know who wrote the post, when and at what time and from now on I will make sure to sign all the posts that I may eventually have to write.FlyingKicks (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irreligion

I don't want to make any more reverts at Irreligion and I am also trying to get full consensus on the talk page but at the same time it is very important for everyone to know that Germany should definitely be up there at least at 59% non-religious and the 2014 WIN-Gallup International Association Poll fully confirms this true reality and this is why I have cited it as a reliable source and a credible reference.FlyingKicks (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 2014 end of year survey page 38 says 21% were atheist or agnostic. This is the same as the 2016 end of year survey-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Germany data

The 2014 WIN-Gallup International Association Poll Survey says that 42% of Germans are non-religious and that 17% are convinced atheists so therefore around 59% of Germans are non-religious not 21% and if according to the End of Year Survey Germany is only 21% atheist and agnostic then in that case if you look at the results of all other countries according to the same End of Year Survey they should also be much lower than indicated on the Irreligion Article and many of them even much lower than 21% and at the same time even the article List of countries by irreligion on the English Wikipedia clearly says that according to the last Survey conducted by the WIN-Gallup International Association in the year 2014 at least 59% of Germans are non-religious, atheists and agnostics.FlyingKicks (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Irreligion.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. JimRenge (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Irreligion 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.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Irreligion

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days 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: {{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.

In spite of the last warning you have continued to revert at this article. While you used the talk page there is no evidence that anyone else supports your change. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Germany data

I don't know why you are always reverting my useful contributions and correct edits and even blocked me from editing for no reason because in reality the whole truth is that you are making disruptive edits not me because according to the 2014 WIN-Gallup International Association Poll Germany is 59% non-religious not 21-34% and this is also fully confirmed in the Wikipedia article List of countries by irreligion and now you have made it even much more ridiculous because all other countries have a single percentage and Germany has a range of false percentages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingKicks (talk • contribs) 05:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An admin told you at 15:14, 10 May 2017: "If you make any more reverts at Irreligion you may be blocked, unless you get consensus first on the talk page." You did not get consensus on the talk page, instead you made two reverts at 19:42 and 20:21.
The document you cited as 2014 WIN-Gallup International Association Poll does not mention that Germany is 59% non-religious. it does not mention Germany at all.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Germany data

There was no need for anyone to tell me that because I did try to get consensus on the talk page and the source that I cited namely the 2014 WIN-Gallup International Association Poll does mention Germany and it does also say that Germany is 59% non-religious and this is confirmed in the following website - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/14/map-these-are-the-worlds-least-religious-countries/. FlyingKicks (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CindyRoleder. Thank you. SA 13 Bro (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been edit warring at Irreligion but I have just been correcting some mistakes which some other users may have been also trying to do so as well that's all and I have been creating new headings every time I make a new post just because I happened to do that not because I intentionally didn't want to continue on the existing section and it's obvious that I'm not the only one doing so and the fact that there are more than one user who is removing the fowid or other references related to membership rather than belief in order to make Germany at 59% non-religious is only logical because that's the true reality and the source and website that I have provided fully confirms that Germany is at least 59% non-religious and the contributions which I and other users have made to articles on Malta are also useful, beneficial and correct even though they are not directly related and there's absolutely no need to check anything because I'm not related to any other known master and I have only had one Username which is FlyingKicks not CindyRoleder even though CindyRoleder might have tried to make other useful contributions and correct edits very similar to mine. FlyingKicks (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doing sock puppetry because I am only using one Wikipedia account namely FlyingKicks for good purposes which should always be allowed and never prohibited and I am not using multiple Wikipedia accounts at all but it could be that other users have also been aware about some mistakes regarding certain Wikipedia articles and they just tried to correct them like me in a rather similar way that's all. FlyingKicks (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of sock puppetry, you must also kindly note that I can only respond to the accusations here and not on the page regarding the sock puppet investigations because I am currently completely banned from doing so there. FlyingKicks (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is CindyRoleder your friend, are you used your friend computer to make the edits at those articles? If so, you're in Meat puppetry. SA 13 Bro (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No not at all CindyRoleder is not my personal computer friend and I didn't use her to make the edits at those articles so therefore I should never be considered in meat puppetry for sure but in that case the true reality is that She must be considered my good friend because She happened to notice the same mistakes as me regarding some Wikipedia articles and tried to correct them like me that's all even though I don't know Her personally but after all that's really irrelevant of course. FlyingKicks (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that we can tell which devices and IP addresses you were "both" editing from, right? Frankly you're unlikely to get unblocked for at least six months now anyway (and you need to appeal via your CindyRoleder account anyway), but the only way even that's going to happen is if you 'fess up and agree not to do it again. Being dishonest about it is not going to convince anyone, and drastically decreases the likelihood that the block will ever be rescinded. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I do realize that you can tell which devices and IP addresses we were both editing from but if we were both editing from the same device and the same IP address that obviously doesn't mean that we know each other personally or that the individual who is editing is the same person because it is obviously not the case and I can't appeal via the CindyRoleder account because the CindyRoleder account is not mine at all and whilst I'm being 100% completely honest about it and I can truly convince some people for sure I am definitely never going to fess up and agree not to do it again because I have never done anything wrong and if my contributions would be reverted by some particular users who have a problem with them then there is certainly no point in having my block rescinded and getting unblocked anyway. FlyingKicks (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should have never been blocked because I'm not a sock puppet and I didn't create the account to violate Wikipedia policy and in fact I have only used one account for legitimate reasons so therefore there is absolutely nothing that should be disallowed at all and all the edits made were obviously not made while evading any block or ban and they are all correct and the references provided also fully confirm that they just reflect the true reality so hence they must definitely never be reverted or deleted for sure. FlyingKicks (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]