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)
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)
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)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
15:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)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)
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)
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
Decline reason:
Confirmed to
VitoMocella68. I'll upgrade the block to reflect this.
Yamla (
talk)
19:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
15:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)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)
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)
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
Decline reason:
Confirmed to
VitoMocella68. I'll upgrade the block to reflect this.
Yamla (
talk)
19:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
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.