User talk:Cookieballer

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) 23:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OKCookieballer (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi. Please use edit summaries to let other contributors know the reason for each edit you make. Rivertorch (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Cookieballer (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you still aren't using them. Since you said 'OK', you've made 13 edits, none with an edit summary. I note you're making wholesale changes to Major religious groups, where you're removing content without explanation and at least some of the content you're adding appears to be unsourced. How are other editors supposed to know what you're up to, and why? We can't read your mind, and the statement on your user page is a little alarming. I've also reverted your edit to Sikhism, which inserted an unsourced statement within sourced content. Please note that all article content must be verifiable using reliable sources and adhere to the policy on neutral point of view. Rivertorch (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're still making the page biased, when you're including a bunch of Western religions with less than 1 million adherents and citing Buddhism as an Indian religion when Nepal is the correct answer. Religions originating in the Indian Subcontinent (Hinduism, Buddha Dharma and Jaina Dharma) used to be called Dharmic religions because Buddha Dharma originated in Nepal which was not an independent country at the time. Sikhism is better known as Sikhi and many Sikhs will be offended when their religion contains 'ism'. That's why it should be changed back to how it was.

In 2011, it was reported that Sikhi was the most steadily growing religion and had about 35 million adherents. You people are underestimating the number of adherents to Far Eastern religions while making Christianity largest by a clear margin. Christianity certainly don't have 2,2 billion adherents when non-religious groups (fast growing in western societies) has 1.1 billion. Most Chinese people today, 90% follow a traditional religion. It is estimated that approximately 50 to 80% of Chinese people today are Buddhist. while the rest follow ethnic religions. with a few muslims in Xinjiang. Cookieballer (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read one single thing I wrote above? I'm not questioning the content of your edits; I'm questioning the way you're making them. Please use edit summaries and make sure any content you add adheres to policy. Rivertorch (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Catholic Church, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Christianity without thoroughly explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Jainism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Arsten, why have you blocked me? You sent me a warning but blocked me before I had a chance to communicate with you. If you think about the population growth in South Asia, the Jain population have tripled since the 1990s. Not to mention the increasing immigrant communities throughout the world. I just saw your warning and want to be given a fair chance to update old religious statistics. If you don't agree with me then you shouldn't have blocked me without a chance to explain my recent edits. I have been seeing religious statistics on wikipedia since 2007 and I see a fair amount of false information. Regarding the statistics of far eastern religions. The jain population stood at 15 million up until 2012. When someone wanted to underestimate followers of all Dhammic/Indian religions.

What secondary reliable sources can you cite? Please read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR. Elizium23 (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite reliable sources for the figures you give, otherwise anyone would be free to make up some figures and insert them into the articles (not that this is new to you, it has been said above and you chose to ignore it). Just because anyone can edit it does not mean that we trust everybody to add his/her own personal opinion and state it like fact. Besides, inserting updated statistics is a poor excuse for arbitrarily deleting whole sections of some articles, sections which were obviously based upon reliable sources. And you were told to use edit summaries, even had it repeated after you agreed to use edit summaries and you still did not use edit summaries. If you did not have the intention to commit vandalism of Wikipedia articles, then you have surely given the impression that you were up to no good. This is why you were blocked. An unblocking request should state something like "I apologize for my behavior, I understand that I have to write edit summaries, to always cite reliable sources for my information, I understand that I am not at liberty to arbitrarily delete sourced content and if I will do it again I will get blocked forever." Getting blocked is not a punishment, its purpose is to minimize damage to the encyclopedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my behaviour and will not delete whole articles with information on subjects. Reliable sources should be the basis of information.(Cookieballer (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]