User talk:LordStarscream100

May 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Jurassic Park III has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Jurassic Park III was changed by LordStarscream100 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.880274 on 2015-05-17T00:19:05+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jurassic World, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Diffs: [1][2] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to List of Lego Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu episodes. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Diff: In this edit you introduced ratings data that is obviously from 2015. This looks a lot like an attempt to deliberately add factual errors into an article. If it was a mistake, please double-check your work. You also introduced a TVGuide reference that does not resolve. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Bread's Crumbs

Hello LordStarscream100,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Bread's Crumbs for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TimothyJosephWood 20:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bread's Crumbs for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bread's Crumbs 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/Bread's Crumbs 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. clpo13_(talk) 19:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ninjago (2014 film)

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 Ninjago (2014 film) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. JTtheOG (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for one main reason: you're trying to promote your YouTube films on Wikipedia. This is not acceptable on Wikipedia, especially as films are not automatically notable by virtue of their existence. You have made some non-COI related edits in the past, however those had their own problems. You may be unblocked if you can do the following:

Promise that you will not try to add articles on yourself and your work to Wikipedia. If the films pass notability guidelines odds are someone else will write about them. However, keep in mind that it's incredibly difficult for most YouTube content to meet notability guidelines, as there's far more content out there than there are reliable sources that can or will write about them. This is why many of the most popular Let's Players do not have Wikipedia articles, for example.
That you will not link to articles unless they specifically relate to the linked article in question. I'm specifically referring to this edit where you tried to link to your film article. Things like this are inappropriate because not only was this self-promotion, but the article was discussing bread crumbs, not a YouTube film.
That you will source content when you add it and you will only add content that merits inclusion. This is in relation to edits like this one where you made a lot of claims about Johnny Depp, none of which are sourced and all of which are rumors. Stuff like that's not appropriate to add because rumors like that rarely get the type of coverage that Wikipedia requires. The thing about that type of thing is that people can and have tried to sue various outlets for posting unfounded rumors. Wikipedia is not TMZ. However in general all things need to be sourced, because otherwise it's essentially original research.

I would also recommend that you go through one of the training programs at WP:ADVENTURE or WP:TRAINING. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can give a good response to these requests, I have no problem with unblocking you - I mainly want to make sure that you know why you were blocked, why it's problematic, and get some assurances that you will not try to add your own work to Wikipedia again in the future. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you made an unblock request here on my talk page with an IP account that you used to make various edits on Wikipedia despite this account being blocked. As was stated on the IP page, this is seen as block evasion and does not reflect well on you. You must request an unblock via this page and you cannot make edits to Wikipedia until this account has been unblocked. This is important because while the IP edits didn't appear to be harmful, a large part of this is that we need to make sure that you can follow guidelines on Wikipedia. If you cannot or will not, then that will impact your chances of getting unblocked. Now here's the content you posted:

Hello. A month ago you blocked my account, LordStarscream100, when I created articles for two films I've made. This came as a huge surprise to me - not only was I not given a warning about doing such a thing, but your reason for blocking me was that I was creating the articles to promote my films. That was not my intention. In fact, this all started when one of my friends went onto the article for bread crumbs and, as a joke, referenced a film we made with a similar title. This gave me the idea to create articles on here for several of my movies, not as a joke, but very seriously. I was not trying to spread word about my projects or promote them in any way. All in all, I thought it would be cool to create articles for them. I didn't see anything wrong with that.

I'd prefer not to argue with you, as I'm extremely busy with other things and as you probably saw, my edits on Wikipedia are small. If you can unblock me, that would be great. I'll contribute to the website appropriately.

Thank you!

Now the thing is, even if you intended for these films to be seen as serious enterprises, the fact is that they did not pass notability guidelines for film and it did come across like you were using Wikipedia to promote them. Even with that aside, the films still did not pass WP:NFILM and failed them pretty solidly. If you want to edit about things on Wikipedia you must read the guidelines for notability.

The other thing that led to your block was that you made an edit that inserted a pretty contentious claim into the PotC article about Johnny Depp. That's the type of claim that, if run in most newspapers, could result in Depp suing the paper for libel unless they had a good source to back up the claims. You cannot put stuff like this on to Wikipedia.

If you can answer my concerns a bit more here then I'm actually open to unblocking you. I do, however, have to warn you to be careful with your wording. Writing stuff like "I'd prefer not to argue with you" is actually pretty offputting and comes across like you don't understand the reasons for your block or for the reasons why your edits were seen as problematic. While we're not going to argue, you do need to show that you understand the reasons for your block and show that you can follow guidelines. Even if the statement wasn't meant to sound arrogant, you need to be careful on here because we cannot see your facial features or vocal inflections and as such, statements like that can actually make people pretty mad on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Terms of Block

I have read the message you sent me and I understand what you're saying. While editing outside of my account I obviously didn't mean to make any poor edits, but I did so believing we'd find a resolve and my account would be unblocked. So while I did evade my block, I did not do so to make any malicious edits.

Hopefully this will allow my account to be unblocked.

--LordStarscream100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.146.113 (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You also posted this same message on my talk page, which is the exact opposite of what I told you to do - to only post unblock requests on this talk page. You also need to be logged into your own account as well. Right now the only and I mean only place you should be posting is on this talk page. You can ping me by posting {{u|Tokyogirl79}} on the article talk page. You should also be making these comments on your talk page under your blocked account. The reason why I'm emphasizing this is that I have already told you that posting on my userpage (or making any other edits other than on your talk page) is seen as block evasion and are against policy. I need to repeat this: you were breaking policy by making IP edits and despite being specifically told that this was against policy, you're doing it again. As an admin, especially the blocking admin, I have to assume that you've learned nothing and would likely continue to violate guidelines if you are unblocked. You can't just say "sorry" and get an automatic unblock, you need to prove to us that you can be trusted to follow the rules and right now you're not following the rules.

I've reposted the above content from my userpage since I want the conversation to remain here. I've also blocked the IP address since you've posted to my talk page under that address. I can't emphasize enough that there's a specific way to go about this and so far, you aren't following this or showing any sign that you have actually understood what I've posted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another warning

STOP POSTING ON MY TALK PAGE. Not only is this NOT going to get the desired result (an unblock), it looks very, VERY bad. It's to the point now where I have to assume that you're deliberately ignoring what I say. What you need to do here is very, very specific. You need to log into the LordStarscream100 account and post an unblock request on that talk page. Not mine. Not the IP address. But the LordStarscream100 talk page. Neither I nor anyone else will unblock you until you have done this and no amount of posting on my talk page under an IP will change this. This is one of the most basic, fundamental rules of getting unblocked. You must request an unblock on the talk page of the blocked account while logged in as that user. You would still be able to post on that talk page under that account while logged in as that user. You are not supposed to post anywhere else. This is very clearly specified on the talk page and I've told you what you need to do several times. At this point I have to assume that you either can't or won't follow these directions, which makes me believe that you're simply not ready to edit Wikipedia if you cannot follow the very simple guidelines for requesting an unblock.

If it's just that you don't understand and nothing that I'm saying is making sense, then it's a case of you being far to young and/or inexperienced to edit on Wikipedia. If that's the case then you need to come back in a few years when you have more experience. But if it's a case of you willfully ignoring guidelines, then that's something that time likely won't fix and in which case it's not a good idea for you to edit Wikipedia at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation at this point is that you come back in a couple of years. At this point I honestly have to say that I don't think that we can trust you on Wikipedia. Even if someone does unblock you, I have to assume that you will not follow guidelines and you will not pay attention to any advice or warnings given to you. I also need to state that at this point I am not going to unblock you and I'd recommend that no other admin unblock you either, as you just appear to be far too young to responsibly edit. I don't even think that having a mentor would make a huge difference since I've very specifically told you what you should and shouldn't be doing while seeking an unblock and you clearly aren't paying attention. If you cannot follow the instructions repeatedly given to you by the admin who blocked you then I have to assume that you would not follow anything that a mentor or other editors told you either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Be Unblocked

Over the last few weeks, we've been going back and forth about my account being unblocked. You gave me the instruction to request an unblock on my talk page while I am logged in. Yet as I said before, I was unable to do so because for some reason I couldn't edit anything, including my own talk page. Whether it was a glitch or something, I have no idea, but when I went to your talk page via an "anon account", you saw that as me requesting to be unblocked - which I wasn't. Because that would be against your instructions that you laid out numerous times. Instead, I was telling you of my dilemma, that for whatever reason I couldn't edit anything while logged on. In that message, I was not requesting to be unblocked, instead I was telling you of my inability to even make that request properly.

Now that I've told you of this, I am requesting to be unblocked on Wikipedia. I suppose it's your call - I'm not a major contributor to the encyclopedia, but my edits are not unnecessary nor am I an ignorant, irresponsible or incompetent user. If you won't unblock me, it's your decision, but nevertheless I am making this request because I am following your instructions exactly as you laid them out, and I am still looking to make useful contributions to Wikipedia.

LordStarscream100 (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2016 (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).

LordStarscream100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This account was blocked last May because I made several edits to Wikipedia that were deemed inappropriate - I created articles for popular films of mine on YouTube, and I was unaware I couldn't do so. As a result of this my account was blocked indefinitely, as was my IP address. I created a separate account, LS100Builder, and over the last year I've done nothing but make sound contributions to Wikipedia. That account was suddenly blocked due to my IP address also being blocked.

Decline reason:

You tell us that you have been evading this block for year, and that it's a reason to unblock you. In order to be unblocked, you have to show us that you understand basic Wikipedia policies and that you are able to follow them. Telling us that you have been violating our WP:SOCK policy for a year is not helpful. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:50, 25 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.

LordStarscream100 (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]