User talk:Camouflageeelife

November 2019

Your edit here suggest that you have conflict of interest with respect to the painting you persistently trying to insert to the article about Cellini. Please stop.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ymblanter, there is no conflict of interest as all claims are verifiable at the source. I am simply a lover of art.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of indef for likely paid editing, in any case COI and WP:NOTHERE. 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 ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #27531 was submitted on Nov 08, 2019 19:47:23. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked, indefinitely, for trying to maintain Benvenuto Cellini's Self-Portrait as an image on relevant pages pertaining to him. The image of the portrait has been there for a long time before, and has been authenticated by world-class experts, including but not limited to Dr. Raoul Perrot of the Université Bernard Lyon I, Dr. Sarah Walden, one of the main fellow restorers at the National Gallery in London, and the expert Richard David of the Cours d'Appel d'Aix en Provence in France. These experts have written scientific articles about the subject of the painting. The portrait was publicly exhibited and has received a lot of press coverage and therefore source material is verifiable. I believe that the reason for my block is because it is not in the interest of certain circles who have hired administrators to ban and systematically delete this authenticated image and piece of human history from the web. They claim that the portrait is "fake" or "inauthentic" without any basis or evidence to support this defamatory claim. These are biased attacks on the portrait. Administrators have claimed that I have a conflict of interest, which I do not, as it is all objective fact and I merely upheld other users' contributions to Wikipedia that can be easily checked through reputable news sources, scientific journals, and articles. Cellini is certainly in my interests, but there is no conflict. If I were to be unblocked, I will certainly edit and contribute to other spheres of my interest, though Cellini was one of my first contributions.

Camouflageeelife (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)camouflageeelife[reply]

Decline reason:

That's a conspiracy theory that doesn't address your own conduct. The other image is undoubtedly Cellini, and we don't have to take your work for who might or might not have authenticated the one you prefer. Even if we accept that both images depict Cellini, there's no reason to push this one. Huon (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2019 (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.

I'll add that if Annex 3 is supposed to be Walden's "authentication", then it's not an authentication at all. Walden carefully describes the painting but does not explicitly provide attribution of either subject or painter. I cannot find any evidence that those experts have indeed written scientific articles about this painting. I also cannot find any press coverage - Google News gives a single press release by the organization controlling the image. Huon (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]