I am not the same user Sagumundi as you claim, but you are the sockpuppet of the user User:Peterniels and must be dealt accordingly.
- Rather bold from this anonymous user who has been involved in vandalisme for many months using different IPs of accusing someone else being a sockpuppet.. In future please refrain from any anonymous reactions and use talk pages rather than edit warring all the time 20:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Grsd (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Roman Catholicism in Europe. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for blocking Ramscheid and other sockpuppet with their nonsense on this page. The edit war , actually a campaigne against vandalism , has stopped, Frankly a took you a long while before taking action.
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Roman Catholicism in Scotland, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree that comparing 2011 figures with 2001 is original research, but if adding a source stops this discussion fine by me also. From the BBC, quote:
- A total of 1.7 million people said they were part of the Kirk family in 2011, down from more than 2.1 million a decade earlier. Some 841,000 classic themselves as Catholic, up slightly from 804,000 in 2001. End quote. I take it that the disputed sentence is okay then?
- Grsd (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Please read WP:OR. If a reliable source gives stats only, state stats only in the article. If a source gives an interpretation of the stats, you may state this in the article. You may not assess the stats yourself to cook up an interpretation which is not actualy stated in the sources or add your own opinions then purport to back them up with sources which actually say nothing of the sort. You are adding some obvious errors, giving unwarranted interpretations and taking factual material and blatantly adding your own spin. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Please read the complete text of a source provided before censoring text . You will find the facts there instead of an interpretation. I reinserted the source , please read not only the table but also the text. Thanks for correcting my mix up beween Aberdeen and Glasgow. One of the source mentions that Church of Scotland membership dropped from 2.1 million to 1.7 ... Why do you not approve of mentioning a decrease in membership, again sources are clearly stating this. Grsd (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Roman Catholicism in Scotland. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)