User talk:VitoMocella68
Herculaneum papyri notice
[edit]Hi VitoMocella68. Please see Talk:Herculaneum papyri#Possible selfciting by Vito Mocella, concerning recent edits to the page. Also, please don't check the box "minor edit" for what are clearly major changes. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 21:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Dear St.Nerol, the way the page was, and with the restoration you have done, reader do not understand the chronological sequence at all. In science, I don't know what field you belong to, there are attempts that fail and attempts that succeed. When an attempt succeeds this represents major progress and both the chronological sequence and the scientific merit must be correctly included in the historical reconstruction. 140.164.38.153 (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia itself does not have an opinion about what counts as "major progress", and should have a neutral tone. Nothing "must" be included. My own field is not relevant, sence here I'm only concerned about the tone of the article and potential bias. Regarding the concrete changes you propose, please reply at the talk page of Herculaneum papyri. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 13:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Major contributions are not a matter of wikipedia's or anyone else's opinion. when you talk about science, on wikipedia as elsewhere, you use the scientific terminology of major or incremental contribution. If a technique is proven to work, for the first time, it is a major contribution. If someone else uses it years later, it is an incremental contribution, and of course chronological order counts. VitoMocella68 (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia itself does not have an opinion about what counts as "major progress", and should have a neutral tone. Nothing "must" be included. My own field is not relevant, sence here I'm only concerned about the tone of the article and potential bias. Regarding the concrete changes you propose, please reply at the talk page of Herculaneum papyri. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 13:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
[edit]
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) 14:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Dear St. Nerol tries to answer with factual data, not with interviews of Brent Seals, which at most reflect his opinion. Are you able to counter with some data or are you just pretending that say "Several group .. "is better because you wrote it before, no one knows on what basis?
- I have no conflict of interest, because my nickname shows a connection with Vito Mocella, while you might work for B. Seals ... It doesn't matter, try to answer with facts if you are capable of it. VitoMocella68 (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Username policy
[edit]In Talk:Herculaneum papyri, you say that you aren't Vito Mocella, writing I am someone who knows and appreciates the work of Vito Mocella and that is why I chose that nickname.
In case you aren't aware, Wikipedia's Username policy doesn't allow this sort of naming:
Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name.
Since you aren't Vito Mocella, it appears that you shouldn't use VitoMocella68 as a user name. You can ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you can simply create a new account for editing. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- In the COI discussion this user seems to implicitly admit that he actually is Vito Mocella, writing
User VitoMocella68 did not hide behind a nickname, as St. Nerol does
. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 15:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) - when I say that I know and appreciate, it means that I am acting in connection with him and therefore on his behalf. My English is simply better and I have more time to devote to you than to him. If I have chosen this nickname, it is not by chance is made in perfect agreement with him, we have done so precisely to say in whose name and on whose behalf these posts are written, the point being that the user VitoMocella68 has chosen to be visible. Who, on the other hand, is St Nerol, who writes things like "several groups proposed and develop.." and then is unable to argue a single sentence in support of what is the nodal point. VitoMocella68 (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- You are editing under the name of a specific, identifiable person, and it is not your name. That violates the WP:REALNAME policy. Having his permission isn't an exception to the policy. -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't want to discuss something completely useless with you. As far as you are concerned, you are discussing with Vito Mocella. Don't try to steer the discussion away from the facts. VitoMocella68 (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- If that is the case, then you have a very clear conflict of interest and should not be editing the article directly, but rather should propose changes on the talk page. Melcous (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- there is no conflict of interest: answer with the facts, saying that one paper was published before others is a fact. It's not an opinion to discuss in talk. VitoMocella68 (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Under wikipedia's Conflict of interest guidelines, editing about someone you know, or on behalf of the subject of an article, or about yourself, all absolutely constitute a conflict of interest. You can choose to follow those guidelines, or you can not edit here. It's up to you. Melcous (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- there is no conflict of interest: answer with the facts, saying that one paper was published before others is a fact. It's not an opinion to discuss in talk. VitoMocella68 (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- If that is the case, then you have a very clear conflict of interest and should not be editing the article directly, but rather should propose changes on the talk page. Melcous (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't want to discuss something completely useless with you. As far as you are concerned, you are discussing with Vito Mocella. Don't try to steer the discussion away from the facts. VitoMocella68 (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- You are editing under the name of a specific, identifiable person, and it is not your name. That violates the WP:REALNAME policy. Having his permission isn't an exception to the policy. -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
RFC/N discussion of the username "VitoMocella68"
[edit]
A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of VitoMocella68 (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. Pemilligan (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
February 2024
[edit]
- To create a new account with a different username, simply log out of this account and then click here to make a new one.
- If you prefer to change the username of this account, you may do so by adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page (this page):
{{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken and in use by another account. You can go here to search and see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is available to be taken.
Appeals: If your username is not in violation of Wikipedia's username policy, and if you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the following text to the bottom of your user talk page here: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
VitoMocella68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
collaboratorVM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Request reason:
I am a collaborator of Vito Mocella and I choose previous name in his behalf. I ask to modify in more correct name putting in evidence that I am a collaborator of Vito Mocella
Decline reason:
Do you also understand that you must propose changes on the talk page instead of making them yourself? The best way to do that is as a formal edit request. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: Bbb23 has tagged VitoMocella68 as a sock of Philodemous (talk · contribs). The block would now appear to be a hard block for sockpuppetry instead of a soft block for username issues.
- You'll need to appeal from your Philodemous account rather than this one. Cabayi (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have access to Philodemous account even if this is probably an account of a colleague. VitoMocella68 (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I am going to ask Vito Mocella himself to make a formal edit request, because the situation on the Herculaneum Papyri page is becoming embarrassing. Clearly there are paid contributors to this site who maintain it as a kind of advertisement to raise funds or for personal purpose. I will also ask Wikipedia for an expert scientific advisor, because it is embarrassing to talk to people who don't understand the difference between a well-recognised scientific paper and an interview. Wikipedia's reputation is at stake and you should be very careful, it is really like mixing homeopathy and scientifically recognised medicine. You can give homeopathy space, but Wikipedia has to make a distinction. VitoMocella68 (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Do not ask Mocella to edit for you, that is meat puppetry and they will likely be blocked.
- Wikipedia is written by lay people for lay people; we cannot guarantee that a scientific expert can communciate with you. Please see WP:EXPERT for further guidance. There are encyclopedia projects out there which do require expertise in a field to be able to contribute about it, but we do not- because we primarily summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps there is a misunderstanding, Mocella does not want to do any editing directly because he feels it would not even be correct, he prefers others to do it for him. What I meant was that Mocella, who has more scientific authority than I do, can directly ask the wikipedia experts for intervention to make the page more in line with scientific reality. I fully understand that it is a matter of summarising what reliable sources have reported. Mocella's article in Nature Comms in 2015 is still, ten years later, the second largest article in terms of media coverage! So you have thousands secondary sources, there are articles from secondary sources such as The New Yorker, New York Times, BBC, El Mundo, El Pais, Le Monde. On the other hand, in the first parts of the page in question, which are more general and, from a certain point of view, more important, someone reported his statements to the BBC shortly after the 2015 article. On the other hand, the Wikipedia page Herculaneum papery in the section dedicated to scientific applications, seems to have been constructed ad hoc in order to confuse the scientific contributions with general phrases such as "several groups proposed phase contrast technique", when there is the article by Mocella who first demonstrated it (receiving very strong media attention) and then there are others who have confirmed it using the same technique, thus incontrovertibly validating this result. On the other hand, the same page in Italian https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papiri_di_Ercolano#Srotolamento_e_avvenimenti_successivi (again edited by an independent source) is much more correct, precisely because no one has (yet) intervened to confuse the page. The Wikipedia page of the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (a scientific institution at European level) European Synchrotron Radiation Facility#Study results mentions Mocella's work as the first example of an application! For all these reasons, and for the seriousness of Wikipedia, scientific and chronological correctness must be restored. Thank you for the advice on how to act, of course we are scientists and we are not generally concerned with how to edit Wikipedia pages, but we are not indifferent to their being as correct as possible. VitoMocella68 (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I can only right now briefly respond that each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies, and what is acceptable on one version(like the Italian) is not necessarily acceptable on another; the English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others as to what is acceptable. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- European Synchrotron Radiation Facility#Study results is in English, btw. In any case Wikipedia references are only a small part of my answer. Similarly, the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herculaneum_papyri#Unrolling of the same page, thus in the main part of which virtual unroll is a subsection, contains a statement by Mocella (again, inserted by someone a long time ago) in an interview with the BBC made in the wake of his 2015 article and the huge media echo. Those who edited the virtual unroll section instead seek to erase or mix up this work that was clearly a key contribution VitoMocella68 (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I can only right now briefly respond that each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies, and what is acceptable on one version(like the Italian) is not necessarily acceptable on another; the English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others as to what is acceptable. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps there is a misunderstanding, Mocella does not want to do any editing directly because he feels it would not even be correct, he prefers others to do it for him. What I meant was that Mocella, who has more scientific authority than I do, can directly ask the wikipedia experts for intervention to make the page more in line with scientific reality. I fully understand that it is a matter of summarising what reliable sources have reported. Mocella's article in Nature Comms in 2015 is still, ten years later, the second largest article in terms of media coverage! So you have thousands secondary sources, there are articles from secondary sources such as The New Yorker, New York Times, BBC, El Mundo, El Pais, Le Monde. On the other hand, in the first parts of the page in question, which are more general and, from a certain point of view, more important, someone reported his statements to the BBC shortly after the 2015 article. On the other hand, the Wikipedia page Herculaneum papery in the section dedicated to scientific applications, seems to have been constructed ad hoc in order to confuse the scientific contributions with general phrases such as "several groups proposed phase contrast technique", when there is the article by Mocella who first demonstrated it (receiving very strong media attention) and then there are others who have confirmed it using the same technique, thus incontrovertibly validating this result. On the other hand, the same page in Italian https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papiri_di_Ercolano#Srotolamento_e_avvenimenti_successivi (again edited by an independent source) is much more correct, precisely because no one has (yet) intervened to confuse the page. The Wikipedia page of the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (a scientific institution at European level) European Synchrotron Radiation Facility#Study results mentions Mocella's work as the first example of an application! For all these reasons, and for the seriousness of Wikipedia, scientific and chronological correctness must be restored. Thank you for the advice on how to act, of course we are scientists and we are not generally concerned with how to edit Wikipedia pages, but we are not indifferent to their being as correct as possible. VitoMocella68 (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- If you have evidence of "paid contributors to this site who maintain it as a kind of advertisement to raise funds or for personal purpose" without disclosing that status as required by the Terms of Use- please offer that evidence per the instructions as Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Reporting undisclosed paid editors. Articles are almost always written by independent editors unconnected with the subject. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Removed VitoMocella68 (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed the user's comment. We are not going to pursue a witch hunt of other editors because a blocked, disruptive puppet (sock or meat, don't much care) disagrees with people and then accuses them of misconduct. I have revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)