User talk:Manlorsen

August 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Societat Civil Catalana has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Societat Civil Catalana was changed by Manlorsen (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.867542 on 2018-08-03T13:06:37 00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and 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 Wikipedia. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

If you have a complaint about an editor or what an editor has done, please take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard instead of repeatedly reverting their edits. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Manlorsen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms our use and policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! VViking_TalkEdits 13:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Your recent editing history at Societat Civil Catalana 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. Scr★pIron^IV 17:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Societat Civil Catalana. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Manlorsen reported by User:Velella (Result: ). Thank you. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC) manlorsen:[reply]

manlorsen Dear Sirs, This article [[1]] needs a review by an indepent reviewer. It has a lot of inconcistencies. How do you believe that an association like Sociedad Civil Catalana receives a prize by the european parliment European Citizen's Prize to Societat Civil Catalana https://elpais.com/politica/2014/11/19/actualidad/1416430539_300940.html if it is has connections or links to whatever they call it to the far right?? There are many incongruencies and the article has to be made from scratch. Therefore I tried to revert to old versions that were much more acceptable and I think afterward has to be improved step by step.

August 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continue to blindly revert and call other editors vandals after your block expires and your next block will be an indefinite one. Use the article's talk page to discuss your concerns. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:manlorsen Dear Sirs, This article [[2]] needs a review by an indepent reviewer. It has a lot of inconcistencies. How do you believe that an association like Sociedad Civil Catalana receives a prize by the european parliment European Citizen's Prize European Citizen's Prize to Societat Civil Catalana to Societat Civil Catalana if it is has connections or links to whatever they call it to the far right?? There are many incongruencies and the article has to be made from scratch. Therefore I tried to revert to old versions that were much more acceptable and I think afterward has to be improved step by step.

I am becoming more experienced user in wikipedia but at the time my account was blocked I did not know the rule and as I explained before I thought maybe wrongly that it is better to start from a version that is more or less correct and therefore I took an older version. It was not my intention at all to make something incorrect just on the opposite I wanted to delete nonsense stuff in wikipedia. I know now better how it is the philosophy of wikipedia of discussing the points and I will follow it. --Manlorsen (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Manlorsen. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Manlorsen (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Hello NeilN I thank you for your comment. I dont have any conflict of interest with Sociedad Civil Catalana SCC because I dont receive any money from there. I support SCC because I am firmly convinced that they are making an important contribution to disantangle the catalan and spanish and european society of the populism incarnated in Catalonia by many independent parties that are selling a reality that is not true and provoquing 3000 companies emigrate from Catalonia. I bring here please a list of minimal changes I propose but I cannot enter because the article is not editable. What I cannot understand because at the moment it is a biased version that is published without a warning in the article that there are many editors now and in the past with different oppinions. Please check the edit list of the last weeks and before. Here my suggestions:[reply]

One of the problems is the chapter title:

"Far-right relations and other controversies"

I would like to change it to "controversies"

"Evidence found by Jordi Borràs shows that Societat Civil Catalana shares a close relationship with far-right organizations, with members of SCC coming from Somatemps[23] and other 51 associations." change please to because it is in my oppinion not showed in the book:

"Jordi Borràs claims in his book that Sociedad Civil Catalana shares a close relationship with far-right organizations, with fundational members of SCC coming from Somatemps[23]." It does not bring much the number of associations if there are not specified.

"Among others, Josep Ramon Bosch,[22][74][70][71] Xavier Codorniu,[27][75] José Domingo,[72] Ferran Brunet[29][73] and Joaquim Coll[76][77] have been in contact with far-right organisations. SCC board of directors has maintained meetings to plan their agenda in which Somatemps members participated.[78]" please change this sentence and put it as claim but not as truth because it is not demostrated:

"Jordi Borras claims that among others, Josep Ramon Bosch,[22][74][70][71] Xavier Codorniu,[27][75] José Domingo,[72] Ferran Brunet[29][73] and Joaquim Coll[76][77] have been in contact with far-right organisations and that SCC board of directors has maintained meetings to plan their agenda in which Somatemps members participated.[78]"

There are more things that could be changed. There are some claims about the links to far right but this links are only true at the beginning. We see that the wikipedia entry of sociedad civil catalana in spanish and english are totally different. I can live with the spanish version that is there accepted for a long time. There are inconsitencies between the two and it cannot be the objective of wikipedia to have contradictory entries about the same thing in different languages. I would kindly ask you to open here a dispute about this article because otherwise it seems as everything is accepted and it is not the case. I would like to achive an article that it is well balanced and not biased but I dont think at the moment that it is possible. We are all interested in a version that it is as much as possible close to the reality and not only based on the past but also on the present. Is there a process in wikipedia to achive this with a mediator? You can see in the talk page that there are a lot of discussions between the different editors and there are in fact editors that are close to my oppinions. I would kindly ask you to put in the entry of this article that it is under dispute. Thanks and regards. --Manlorsen (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Manlorsen: Conflict of interest is not limited to being paid. If you hold a position in SCC (whether paid or not), you have a conflict of interest that must be disclosed if you want to contribute to any article related to it. I would suggest you to read the policy on conflict of interest. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MairoGom: Concerning the article [[3]] I don't have Conflict of interest because I am not holding a position in SCC and I simply focus on facts related to the article and not on oppinions of third people. --Manlorsen (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The discussion is about the topic Societat Civil Catalana. Thank you. Filiprino (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC) --Manlorsen (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Not at all because I dont receive any money from Sociedad Civil Catalana. I am just here because I believe in the work that is being done by SSC. If you Filiprino demostrate your arguments with facts I will not support SCC anymore but your arguments are based in oppinions and beliefs...[reply]

3O Decline

Please note that I have declined your request at WP:3O as there does not appear to have been thorough discussion regarding the issue for which you were requesting a third opinion. That said, please note that your 3O request was malformed and I'm assuming you were referring to the latest discussion at Talk:Societat Civil Catalana. If not, you are welcome to re-file, but if you do so please make it more clear for which thread on the Talk page you are requesting a third opinion. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Miriam Tey de Salvador, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear [[User:JJMC89|JJMC89] I did not do disruptive editing but I provided in the talk page of the entry [[4]] the explanation of every single change I made. I made a big effort that the things are clearly explained. Thx --Manlorsen (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Miriam Tey de Salvador 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. Brad v 19:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brad I would kindly ask you for reading the talk page of the entry Miriam Tey de Salvador and you will see there that I wrote all the changes in the talk page and looked for discussions with the participants inquiring for oppinions to my suggestions before changing the entry. I therefore don't understand your critics. I am not reverting, I am trying to improve the current version of the text and I am working based on the policy of wikipedia, justifying all the changes. Could you please be more explicit what was wrong, thx --Manlorsen (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You performed 4 reverts within a 24-hour period, 1 2 3 4. Brad v 22:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I read the definition of reverts:

Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version.

I don't think that I have reverted because I did not take an old version but I made a change in the current version and this change was brought for discussion in the talk page several times. I even try to find a consensus. That is not for me to revert to an older version. If you check my suggestion has changed with respect to my former suggestions.

I have the impression that when I made my changes a bot was activated in seconds to change my version and to revert to an initial version and I think there were two bots. The reason can be because I did not write in the "edit summary" anything but in the talk page, maybe that was my mistake.

--Manlorsen (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]