User talk:Manipulateus

Welcome!

Hello, Manipulateus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barelvi

Thank you for adding the following to the article on the Barelvi:

Although Barelvis may follow any one of the Ashari and Maturidi schools of Islamic theology and one of the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali madhhabs of fiqh in addition to optionally choosing from one of the Sunni Sufi orders, most Barelvis in South Asia follow the Maturidi school of Islamic theology and the Hanafi madhhab of fiqh specifically in addition to a Sufi order like the Qadiri, Chishti or the Suhrawardi tariqa.

This is a very long sentence, and so is hard to understand. Please could you express it in several shorter sentences.

Where did you get this information from? Please could you provide a citation to a reliable source that supports what you have said.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Your recent editing history at Bangladesh 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.
Both of you have broken 3RR. Take it to the talk page. Meters (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Manipulateus reported by User:Nafsadh (Result: ). Thank you. nafSadh ^{did say} 14:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are a fairly new editor (less than 100 edits) and you have been involved in an edit war on an important article, Bangladesh. You've broken the WP:3RR rule there. In addition, you have continued to revert while a report about you was open at WP:AN3. An administrator would see plenty of reasons to block your account for edit warring. There might still be time for you to reply and promise not to edit again until you find consensus for your changes on the talk page. The main person you have been reverting, User:Vivaan65, stopped when they were warned by an administrator (User:Meters) but you did not. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have stopped reverting as well and moved to talk but before any consensus was reached my edits have all been reverted and I have done nothing about it. I believe its a neutrality issue and will proceed accordingly. --Manipulateus (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Just to clarify, I'm not an admin. I just happened to notice two users edit warring with no attempt to discuss the content. I warned both users without making any evaluation of the disputed content (it's not an article I have any knowledge of). Meters (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for ~~abusing multiple accounts~~ edit warring. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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} 19:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Manipulateus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think there is a mistake here because I haven't been using multiple accounts. Which accounts are they and what are the activities? I've been using this one account all the time and its me who has been asking others whether they've been using multiple accounts to revert my edits or impersonate me in the talk page of Bangladesh. Manipulateus (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nothing you have said below appears to be an undertaking not to continue edit-warring. However, I have changed the block log reason, as you do not seem to have abused multiple accounts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

So this account just happens to get autconfirmed as soon as you are reported for edit warring and restores your content using the same type of edit summary? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user asked user:Nafsadh, an experienced editor with more than 10 years on the project and a clean block log, if he or she was socking [1] after Nafsadh commented on the dispute and opened a 3RR case. The username Manipulateus seems to be well chosen. Meters (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does not matter because thats an impersonation of me. An attempt to divert from the biased reverts I've been pointing out as vandalism. Manipulateus (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I usually block or extend the block of editors calling good-faith edits vandalism. Read WP:NOTVAND. This is your only warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN:, it's a joe job. Manipulateus is editing from another continent and is

Unrelated to the Indiemovienovelist account, which is actually a troll.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manipulateus, I will unblock you under two conditions: 1) You must get consensus for your edits on Bangladesh before making them. 2) No more calling good faith edits vandalism. Ponyo, there are two new editors at the talk page - Steadykeel and Brinkmacaw. Any idea about them? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Yup, those are both our troll. If you check the most obnoxiously-named accounts in my block log from last half hour or so, it's all them.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's been going on was surely not right and anyone going through the history logs of Bangladesh will see that. I do not agree they were good faith edits. Then there are false flag impersonations. Before any consensus or edits I would like to challenge the article's neutrality. Since I am doing nothing I don't mind being blocked. --Manipulateus (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you were not abusing multiple accounts after all. (A checkuser looked into the situation). So with permission of the blocking admin, I've changed the above block reason to 'edit warring'. As mentioned above, NeilN is OK with unblock if (1) you agree to get consensus for your edits at Bangladesh before making them and (2) you agree not to call good faith edits vandalism. Let us know. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) I was never against consensus but my issue here is about the neutrality of the article. Reaching a consensus here would be pointless if the conclusion reached is not neutral. Thats why I insisted and still insist on a neutrality check before everything else. More so as my effort at making the top section article content (that gives undue weight to one ethnicity and practically deny the significance of others) more justified was not met with in a constructive manner. I do not have any hope for consensus. 2) I would not call good faith edits vandalism, but what you are referring to as good faith edits I believe were repeated un-constructive and biased reverts. --Manipulateus (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You broke 3RR with no attempt to discuss the edits on the talk page. You continued after being warned by more than one editor. An edit warring block is justified. Meters (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did it once after being asked to stop. Then I stopped. I was banned for socking initially not edit warring. Some accounts were trying to impersonate/frame me into trouble. --Manipulateus (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTTHEM you should not be discussing the behavior of others. We want to know if you are promising to wait for agreement in the future. Also, you seem not to be getting the point about the definition of WP:VANDALISM. Even if edits are biased they are not vandalism, so long as they are well-intentioned. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said I do not have any issue with consensus/waiting even though I am hopeless about it or whether the article even meets wikipedia's neutrality reqs. first. --Manipulateus (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you will wait for others to agree with you first before making your change to the article? EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston and NeilN: I think this user first needs to be unblocked with the unblock summary indicating that he was not socking. Though these terms are good and I suggest Manipulateus to carefully read WP:RS because he was edit warring and restoring self published unreliable sources.[2] Rzvas (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see an explanation from Manipulateus of this [3], which appears to be saying that he will continue edit warring. Meters (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did say I will not accept a biased top section before consensus is reached but I did not participate in edits after saying that. Even now I'm in for a neutrality check first before any talks. --Manipulateus (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming your edit war after your block expires tomorrow will most likely result in a longer block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]