User talk:TonySullivanBooks

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, TonySullivanBooks. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Lucius Artorius Castus, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest 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, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lucius Artorius Castus. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I received your emails. As a matter of policy, I handle Wikipedia related matters on Wikipedia if at all possible, for openness and transparency. I noticed your edits and saw you were attempting to cite your own work for your edits, this is a severe conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI, as well as how to make edit requests. You should not make edits that involve your own work directly, but you may propose them as an edit request on the article talk page, Talk:Lucius Artorius Castus.

This is in no way a judgment on the merits or truthfulness of your work, but any edits related to it must be done properly. You may also wish to read guidance for expert editors if this historical material relates to your work or field. Thanks 331dot (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple/Unfulfilled/2022/January#TonySullivanBooks → Curioushistorian is the archived thread you're looking for. Ping me if you make another request and I'll act on it. Cabayi (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another email response

Any block of the IP range you're on might not have had anything to do with you. If you would like to be exempt from it, go to WP:IPECPROXY and follow the instructions there. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, thanks for your reply. I clicked on that link and unfortunately can't understand a word of that. That probably says more about my abilities understanding computers but it does mean I won't be able to help very much in the future. I will continue to suggest small changes and confine my suggestions to the hugely speculative and demonstrably false statements I see appear. But you appear to have some bad faith actors trying to push particular theories across multiple pages (for example anything involving Lucius Artorius Castus). I'm sorry I can't be of more help but this site is too difficult for me to understand, regards Tony TonySullivanBooks (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lucius Artorius Castus. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not sure what I am supposed to do here. It's not even my 'war'.

I've been trying to get these users to use the talk page but they refuse.

Look at the talk page and you will see the post from one of the original creators and curator of the page.

There's several users, authors of a journal article, 'Missing Pieces', and proponents of the Artorius castus/King Arthur theory who keep changing the page to fit their fringe theory.

No-one else seems to be stopping them. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see this post from one of their number openly admitting they wish to start an edit war and hope to get people banned: "11:50, 5 July 2022‎ Artoriusfadianus talk contribs‎.... Hey stupid user Here I am. Let's start the war. Wikipedia please delete Sullivan account."

TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Hi Tony Sullivan, Let's start! I'm going to revert your edits and restore my information. What about it? Emryswledig (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in edit wars or personal attacks.

Place your comments with facts and evidence on the talk page of the relevant article.

Those can then be discussed. Changes can be made once a consensus has been reached or someone with more authority steps in and makes a decision. TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a personal attack. You are reverting edits and this is the talk page.I clicked on 'talk' near your last revert. If you feel attacked please ask your friend of Wikipedia for help. Emryswledig (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Put your reasoning on here then. One point at a time. Let see if we can agree on something. TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lucius Artorius Castus hypothesis is not "fringe." It's known in Australia, Japan, China, Russia, Georgia, Turkey, Albania, Croatia, Italy, Germany, France, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, the USA, and Canada. The problem is that Tony Sullivan doesn't consider material that is not in English, he rarely reads anything outside the borders of England proper. Shashtah (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct and not relevant. Put your reasoning one point at a time.

I will start:

Regarding memorial, dedication or funerary inscriptions detailing a campaign or career such as that of LAC:

Internal enemies were always specified as rebels, defectors or public enemies.

External enemies were always named, tribal or people.

The argument for Armenios is that there are literally dozens of similar inscriptions using Armeniacus (e.g. when referring to an 'Armenian' war).

The first reading in 1850 interpreted the next letter as an E, thus ARME-.

The only other ARM- type name, Armoricanos, is too long and not attested in that period.

Experts such as Birley, Higham, Tomlin, Loriot, Davenport etc all support this.

The argument against Armatos is it is too vague. It's never used on memorial, dedication or funerary inscriptions.

Examples within text on law codes don't support it's use on memorial stones.

Law codes are not memorial stones.

Using it's presence in literary sources I find odd because it's a Latin word and all Latin words will have been used, spoken and written.

Given all that how can you keep claiming Armenios is 'impossible' and Armatos is the 'only option'? TonySullivanBooks (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]