User talk:L7starlight

Welcome!

Hello, L7starlight, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Reference errors on 26 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Nossrat Peseschkian page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi L7starlight! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 10:20, Friday, March 27, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, L7starlight. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Chandu Yarram, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 02:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Chandu Yarram

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Chandu Yarram, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. /wiae /tlk 02:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chandu Yarram for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chandu Yarram is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandu Yarram (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Variation 25.2 (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, L7starlight. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (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. Rentier (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Rentier: thanks for informing. Please check my reply at the discussion thread.--L7starlight (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve The Hunted (2015 film)

Hi, I'm Mduvekot. L7starlight, thanks for creating The Hunted (2015 film)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please tone down the flowery prose and write in a neutral, dispassionate tone. Examples: "the latest in online distribution", "Academy Award-winning effects studio behind numerous blockbuster films", "one of the exceptionally skilled women in the stunt industry", "recognized swordmaster".

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Mduvekot (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Sextones for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Sextones is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sextones until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Theroadislong (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SmartSE (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Stopping Traffic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stopping Traffic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stopping Traffic until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Theroadislong (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

L7starlight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I appreciate the efforts of @Smartse: L7starlight (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC) to make WP better, but the accusations in COI and of undisclosed paid editing made by user Rentier were initially untrue and were based on his false and exaggerated (hoping, good faith) implications. Blocking me based on false evidence isn’t aligned with policy and is a mistake which shouldn't take place in our community.[reply]

The accusations made up by Rentier on this page state that there are similarities between the new Upwork jobs that he had found (that ask for creation of the page) and the Wikipedia pages I’ve edited. He also states that there are names like ‘Casar’, Liesje’, ‘Alex’ or ‘Sadhvi’ mentioned in those links and in the ones that he saw on the website but can’t show as a proof.

Here are the links that Rentier shared:

https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~011aee422e9b144153 https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01123975935102ff4d https://www.upwork.com/jobs/~01bc3f1764b03bf6d2

In fact, these aforementioned links do not match or mention any of the article I’ve created or edited. as:

1. The Hunted was created in 2012 by Inlandmamba and can’t be connected to a random new job link that is mentioned.

Casar Jacobson was created in 2014 by Thivierr and also can’t be connected to a random new job link that is mentioned.

Liesje Sadonius article was created in 2007 by James Who. Again, it can’t be connected to any new job link that is mentioned.

Alexio Kawara, Petcube and Get Backup (which now got deleted because of this accusation) were created back in 2015 and 2016. Rentier doesn’t say these articles are connected to any of the Upwork links. Neither does he include any evidence of ‘paid editing’ or COI. Yet, he pointed them out and included to the list.

For this, all his accusations do not contain any evidence or proof and are a simple harassment that took place here and ended in my indefinite blocking as an editor. It is not logical and is not fair.

It means that anyone who creates or edits an article about a living person, a software, a company, a film, an musician may be accused in a COI and ‘paid editing’ without any facts or proofs. Or we should change the policy, stating that editors may only create articles for people or companies that no longer live or operate. Which is absurd..

2. Exploring the links by Rentier which he claims as the evidence, there are no such names as ‘Casar’, Liesje’, or ‘Sadhvi’ in the description or in the reviews.

3. Another ‘detective’ find by [{Rentier]] was regarding the images that I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I took the images from Flickr and they all are publicly available. Yet Rentier for some reason (or deliberately) changed the information about their upload date, putting it like they were uploaded to Flickr on the same date that I uploaded them to Wikimedia. His accusation of COI is based on this similarity. Which is again not true, as:

The Hunted image I took from Flickr is dated April 4, 2012.

The pictures of ‘Casar Jacobson’ that I also took from Flickr by googling ‘Casar Jacobson’ were dated May 14, 2017, March 14, 2017, May 22, 2017 and June, 20, 2017.

The Sextones image I also took from the official Flickr account of the band, choosing the latest file among all that were available. There was much press about their newly released album, which is how I found out about them.

4. Rentier claims that one of those job links is created by a person from the city Reno and mentions ’Alex’ in the review section which, according to Rentier, coincides with one of the participants of the band. While it could be thousands of jobs on Upwork from the city Reno and you can’t base the accusation on this, I opened the link and there was no ‘Alex’ or other participant name on that job page. There is mentioned ‘Alisha’ which doesn’t coincide with the participants of the band. This evidence is made out by Rentier who has been exceeding his authority and was told not to do this by other respected editors such as @Bbb23: and @GB fan: on Rentier’s talk page.

— I have been a WP editor for several years, creating and editing articles for subjects that seem to matter and that seem to be notable according to the policy. All articles I’ve created were written according to the standards and guidelines, using the NPOV, and being supported with the decent amount of references on credible sources. They were subsequently edited by many other editors proving those articles have the rights to exist and can’t be simply removed or tagged with ‘paid editing’ without any evidence.

If you explore my commitments and history of editing, you will see that I edit Wikipedia just like you, editing pages, fighting vandalism, fixing links, checking and adding references and citations, and making Wikipedia the #1 destination for proven facts. Devoting my time and energy, I haven’t been paid for this, yet have just being accused in it by a user without any facts that prove it, and blocked even without an opportunity to object.

I hereby ask other editors, including @Bilby: and @Jytdog: whom I respect, to explore this situation, check the information which was deliberately altered by Rentier, remove the block from me and remove the ‘COI/paid editing’ tags from my articles as they do not have any ground behind them. L7starlight (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I reviewed the COIN case carefully, and it seams to me that everything Rentier wrote is true, i.e. most of what you wrote above (and below) is not true. It is obvious that you are taking paid jobs at upwork.com without disclosure. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2017 (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.

You pinged me, but only near the bottom did you answer the question I asked about whether you have been editing for pay, or not: I haven’t been paid for this. Your editing does look very much like that of a paid editor and is promotional. It is not up to me whether you are unblocked, but you have cluttered up your unblock request with flak and counterattack, which was unwise; the issues here are your editing and your behavior. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:, thanks for your comment and opinion. Well, I indeed responded above that I didn't edit or create articles based on undisclosed payment. This whole case of me being accused in it looks vague and made up, which I tried to prove with the facts which I stated step by step. A user altered facts, mentioned links that do not correspond with articles I've edited, put COI tags and nominated my articles for deletion. All without real evidence and proofs. It just doesn't seem right to me..--L7starlight (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rentier for some reason (or deliberately) changed the information about their upload date, putting it like they were uploaded to Flickr on the same date that I uploaded them to Wikimedia

Displayed on Flickr are the dates the photos were taken. I listed the dates the photos were uploaded to Flickr, and for as long as the photos are online, everyone can verify that. In other words, you just dug yourself a hole. Rentier (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L7starlight, if you are going to link to "COI" and "Rentier", please link to WP:COI and User:Rentier, not to the disambiguation pages in article space. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm talking about is this deliberate altering of the facts made by Rentier. By which I mean putting the wrong dates when the files were uploaded to Flickr and Wikimedia. He bases his whole paranoid theory on this, together with the doubtful links which do not contain or mention the information which he states. It is outing, because one user providing the altered facts and no evidence can point another user out, delete his articles and block him as an editor. That's wrong.--L7starlight (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File	Uploaded to Commons	Uploaded to Flickr (according to Rentier	Uploaded to Flickr (real data)!	Verification
File:The Sextones.jpg	June 21st	June 19th	June 19th	https://www.flickr.com/photos/149691098@N02/35409787315/
File:The Hunted film poster.jpg	June 20th	June 20th	April 4th, 2012	https://www.flickr.com/photos/75151818@N00/35266022772/
File:Casar Jacobson Miss Canada.jpg	June 20th	June 20th	May 22, 2017	https://www.flickr.com/photos/caesarjacobson/35033325750/
File:Casar Jacobson UN2.jpg	June 20th	June 20th	March 14th, 2017	https://www.flickr.com/photos/caesarjacobson/35380976246/
File:Casar Jacobson UN.jpg	June 20th	June 20th	June 20th	https://www.flickr.com/photos/caesarjacobson/35290965821
File:Casar Jacobson.jpg	June 20th	June 20th	May 14th	https://www.flickr.com/photos/caesarjacobson/34277070930/

--L7starlight (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the evidence is located at WP:COIN#User:L7starlight. Rentier (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]