User talk:Philodemous

Herculaneum papyri

Hi Philodemous. You have been making very similar changes to the article Herculaneum papyri (and to its talk page) as User:VitoMocella68 were repeatedly doing, before he was blocked (for a username violation). At the same time, there is a conflict of interest discussion concerning VitoMocella68 at the noticeboard. Do you have any conflict of interest to declare regarding these edits? —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 21:57, 22 February 2024 (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. Thank you. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 00:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't have any conflict of interest, I followed the discussion first, and I found that a correct reconstruction is needed. However I have impression that you have a strong biased pov, for instance you insisted with En-Gedi scroll that are completely out of topic! Have you some conflict of interest? Philodemous (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not have any conflict of interest regarding the scrolls. I do not know anyone that works with anything that relates to them, and I did in fact not know about their existence until I read about them in the news and on Wikipedia a few days ago. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 07:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, Philodemous can I clarify that you are saying you have no connection at all with the editor @VitoMocella68:? And that it is just a coincidence that on the exact same day that they were advised to create a new account or user name, and then blocked from editing from that account, that you created a brand new account and starting editing the same article? And that you then added in the same content about Mocella that they had previously added and others had removed?

If it is not just the most unbelievable coincidence, and you do have some connection with Mocella, I suggest it would serve you well to be honest and transparent right now about it and we can help you find a way forward. If it turns out later that you were not telling the truth, you will most likely be banned from editing here completely. Melcous (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Melcous, I already replied above. I started from that version because it seemed to me to be a better reconstruction, for clear reasons. Everyone minimises the work, so I made an edit of the best available version and not a rewrite from scratch! Everyone has their own way of telling things, so I added some details, for example about the role of papyrologist Obbink (Dirk Obbink), which readers deserve to know and which were missing in all previous versions. Could you please at this point explain and state your connections and possible conflict of interest with the users St.Nerol, Yodin as well as with B. Seals, of whom you, Yodin and St. Nerol also seem to be a supporter? Philodemous (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And so we're supposed to believe that user St.Nerol knew nothing about it until few days ago, didn't know anyone who worked on it, heard about it in the news, looked it up on Wikipedia, and then decided to monitor such a wikipedia page without any scientific or literary interest, even remote, maybe as an expert on Egyptian papyri? Do you realise that this is not believable? Philodemous (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not directly answered the question: are you the same person who was editing using the account VitoMocella68 or are you not? And if not, do you know that person? Please simply and clearly say yes or no to these two questions. As for you now asking about possible WP:COI for myself and others, my edit history here speaks for itself - I have been editing on wikipedia for 10 years and have worked on thousands of articles. I came across this one due to the discussion at WP:COIN. I have no other connection to the topic or the people you are editing about, or these other editors. Melcous (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually answered the question directly, but you don't seem to understand. I have no conflict of interest, I'm not the same person you quote, whom I don't know personally, I've never worked in this specific field, but I've been following the affairs of the Herculaneum Papyri for more than thirty years, so I understand what the essential points are that need to be highlighted. Philodemous (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coming to you, I find it very disturbing that you have edited thousands of Wikipedia pages. Thousands (plural) is a bit much for what is supposed to be a voluntary contribution. Are you by any chance a paid contributor WP:PAID? In that case, I think you should issue a disclaimer and clarify your position.WP:PCD WP:DISCLOSEPAY WP:PAYDISCLOSE Philodemous (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I have > 162,478 edits. You got a problem with that? 😋 I cannot see unblocking you with such a combative attitude. I'll leave this for someone with fewer edits.🙄 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Herculaneum papyri shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 13:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is extremely useful, but while I and other users have brought arguments looking for a consensus, User:St.nerol does not seem to want to discuss, accuses without reason, but so far has not brought any single reasonable argument other than: "My version is simply better than yours". This is not discussion. Philodemous (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely false; I simply added a reference without even deleting any text.

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).

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

Request reason:

I simply added a single reference without even deleting any text

Decline reason:

You edit-warred against multiple users after being warned. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:39, 23 February 2024 (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.

Philodemous (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And edit warred to keep it there. And you made edits indistinguishable from those of VitoMocella68. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is not clear to me, I well said that I was in agreement with those edit additions, which did not destroy anything but added information that was all verified and verifiable, but undesirable to some users. The point is that these users basically say: secondary sources are needed. I have provided a link with thousands of secondary sources, but this is not good, because in an interview there is a gentleman who says he disagrees ... a practice unknown to the scientific community. So what do you do, because a gentleman gave an interview saying he disagrees, an article in the world's biggest scientific journal has to be thrown out ? Philodemous (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

no edit-war I simply brought arguments to which nobody replied except by saying that according to them the scientific results were debatable

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=no edit-war I simply brought arguments to which nobody replied except by saying that according to them the scientific results were debatable |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=no edit-war I simply brought arguments to which nobody replied except by saying that according to them the scientific results were debatable |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=no edit-war I simply brought arguments to which nobody replied except by saying that according to them the scientific results were debatable |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}