User talk:Starshine60

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Starshine60, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

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).

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Exemplo347 (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Garrity (February 20)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:David Garrity and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Starshine60, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:David Garrity has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:David Garrity. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Starshine60. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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. @Starshine60: Please can you respond here, with details of your Conflict of Interest. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: I have met David Garrity through interviewing him a long time ago. That is what set me on the path to want to create a wikipedia page, since the man is so interesting and I felt he was notable enough to be included in the world's encyclopedia. Although I am a writer, I have never written wikipedia article before this. I'm finding the process incredibly difficult to manage and feel like I'm getting attacked, but trying to keep a cool head and learn. Thanks for the guidance. (Starshine60 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

February 2017[edit]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Anthony Johnson (attorney), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice[edit]

Hi. Please do not remove COI templates from articles where you are the contributor suspected to have a COI, like you did here. I appreciate that discussion is ongoing on the talk page but, it seems likely that you are close to the subject of the article and it really is up to you to convince others on the talk page that you're not. Please don't remove the COI template again. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 07:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:JONBROD.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JONBROD.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. XXN, 21:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello Starshine60, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Mohamed A. El-Erian have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Ben Vigoda[edit]

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Ben Vigoda, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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. Legacypac (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- Sorry about that -- i usually use the sandbox -- not sure what i did here but thanks for letting me know! (Starshine60 (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

A page you started (Godard Abel) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Godard Abel, Starshine60!

Wikipedia editor Robertgombos just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Linked to it from G2 crowd. The "SteelBrick and Salesforce" section needs to be referenced.

To reply, leave a comment on Robertgombos's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Robert G. (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert G. (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC) - You can see on my talk page I am currently blocked (and you can read my whole sob story if you wish (below)). That said, I'm concerned as to why this page was just deleted? You reviewed it, so what made the person simply delete it without any discussion? --Starshine60 (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert G. (talk)-- PhantomSteve (talk) is the one who deleted it, from what I can see. Any clarity on what is going on here is appreciated. I worked hard on that page. Thanks. --Starshine60 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jeffrey McCormick[edit]

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 Jeffrey McCormick, 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 discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, 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. Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed paid editing[edit]

Hello Starshine60. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Starshine60. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Starshine60|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. SmartSE (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SmartSE (talk) I am not being paid for anything. Not that my day job is wikipedia's business as i prefer to remain anonymous in my edits, but i cover the technology industry so I get to learn about, interview, and even photograph very cool people in business and tech. When I am researching them ahead of time and notice they don't have a wiki page, I set out to create one if I feel they meet Wiki guidelines. Your point is fair about submitted a draft, but in the past I didn't like the way I was spoken to our the accusations made so I decided to just submit and stand by my edits -- as you can see, with the exception of a recent page I attempted to make right and edit to bring back, my edits have been reviewed by fellow wikipedians and "green checked." I don't blame you for thinking i am paid to do this, I guess I can see why you might, but you are very mistaken. I am donating my time to try to make wikipedia a better place. To me, the business and tech pages needs work -- people look to wikipedia for unbiased research -- i am doing my part to help. Please do not say things like "the user is obviously" paid -- that is not rooted in fact. It's issues like this that make me want to quit editing entirely. --Starshine60 (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for undisclosed paid editing and almost certainly block evasion.

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 ~~~~}}. SmartSE (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2017 (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).

Starshine60 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not being paid for anything. Not that my day job is wikipedia's business as i prefer to remain anonymous in my edits, but i cover the technology industry so I get to learn about, interview, and even photograph very cool people in business and tech. When I am researching them ahead of time and notice they don't have a wiki page, I set out to create one if I feel they meet Wiki guidelines. Your point is fair about submitted a draft, but in the past I didn't like the way I was spoken to our the accusations made so I decided to just submit and stand by my edits -- as you can see, with the exception of a recent page I attempted to make right and edit to bring back, my edits have been reviewed by fellow wikipedians and "green checked." I don't blame you for thinking i am paid to do this, I guess I can see why you might, but you are very mistaken. I am donating my time to try to make wikipedia a better place. To me, the business and tech pages needs work -- people look to wikipedia for unbiased research -- i am doing my part to help. Please unblock. Thank you. Starshine60 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Having reviewed the editing history and the information provided by SmartSE, I do not think there is good reason to unblock this account. Two explanations present themselves; either you are indeed a paid editor, or you have no concern for (or do not understand) Wikipedia's copyright policy. I can't say with 100% certainty which I believe to be the case, but either way, allowing this account to continue editing is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:06, 23 October 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.

Reviewing admin Yunshui ^雲 -- Thank you for reviewing. As you may have figured out from my unblock request, I am a journalist. The other reason I joined wikipedia was to learn about the community as I have been wanting to write a piece on this for a long time. It's been a concern for me that wikipedia is now becoming the go to source for all these new knowledge databases beyond google (siri, alexa, etc). I thought the best way to research this piece is to become part of the community and try myself. I picked a niche, and I believe I have created good pages that are well cited. These are all pages that I looked for in my own research, couldn't find, and then set out to create them. My biggest concern is how even though it's meant to be the world's encyclopedia, the power really is in the hands of the few who have been tapped by their peers. While i'm all for democracy, to me, this is getting unwieldy and i'm truly not sure the balance of power is correct. When someone like me tries to contribute to the collective and gets met with passive aggressive (or even outward aggressive) claims against me, I just don't know... I also find it challenging to accept that SmartSE (talk) defames my name by stating they have "evidence" and will only provide behind closed doors. I think I am bought into the wikipedia mission, but I do think some things are quite flawed. I'm curious to see how this turns out. Please keep me posted, thank you. PS: I noticed the Godard Abel page was simply deleted, after it had been reviewed and edited by another wikipeidan, etc... shouldn't there have been a discussion around it? I worked really hard on that page. Thanks for any clarity.

Reviewing admin please email me for evidence regarding why I seriously doubt that they are telling the truth. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SmartSE (talk) If it's evidence then it can't be doubt. Evidence = certainty. How can I produce an employer for "paid wikipedia edits' when that is NOT true? You basically are saying "either disclose you're paid" (which i'm not, so i can't) or I'll ban you. So, how exactly do I proceed here?

Proposed deletion of Jon Brod[edit]

The article Jon Brod has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.Utterly promo-stuff.Written by an undisclosed PAID editor.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Godric on Leave - For the last time, I am NOT paid to edit, but I can see I am fighting a losing battle here (just read the rest of this talk page to see I am outnumbered by wiki bullies. Not only that, but since i am blocked i can't even defend myself. This community is flat out mean. I wanted my assumptions to be proved wrong -- that having an unregulated source of information was good because it leveled they playing field for everyone to contribute. I can see that I am wrong. Do what you want with my pages - you guys are on a mission now, aren't you? It's not like anyone will listen to me anyway. If you find yourself reading a piece on the actual media (not peer reviewed, ACTUAL newssources that wikipedians are supposed to hold so dear), please pause and think about this interaction. --Starshine60 (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

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).

Starshine60 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

For the last time, I am NOT paid to edit, but I can see I am fighting a losing battle here (just read the rest of this talk page to see I am outnumbered by wiki bullies. Not only that, but since i am blocked i can't even defend myself or the pages I worked HARD on -- and every single page was reviewed by another wikipedian, greenchecked, and even improved.... This community is flat out mean. It reminds me of schoolyard bullying, to be honest. I wanted my assumptions to be proved wrong -- that having an unregulated source of information was good because it leveled they playing field for everyone to contribute. I can see that I am wrong. You guys are on a mission now, aren't you? It's not like anyone will listen to me anyway. If you find yourself reading a piece on the actual media (not peer reviewed, ACTUAL newssources that wikipedians are supposed to hold so dear), please pause and think about this interaction. I am trying ONE more time to get this block removed. Please review, and do the right thing. If I need to learn more about editing, then TEACH me. Early on some wikipedians were nice and tried to help. Try to help instead of making wild accusations -- the community won't thrive unless we help each other. Starshine60 (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nothing in here justifies us unblocking you. It's mostly just a rant bout how poorly you've been treated in your mind. Please address the reasons for your block, not discussion about others' actions. only (talk) 21:23, 23 October 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.

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).

Starshine60 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have tried multiple times to explain why I shouldn't be blocked, butonly (talk has asked me to do it again.... 1) I am not paid to edit. How I go about proving this I am unsure? As I have stated, I write about and research technology, when I am researching someone of importance and they are not on wikiepdia, I set to put them on. Sometimes, as is the case with Ben Vigoda, I go so far as to also create a page for interesting technology principles, as I did with Bayesian Program Synthesis. Do I have a niche of people I try to craft articles about? Absolutely! I contribute based on what I am interested in. Have I always done it right? I have no idea. I am new to this, and, as mentioned in previous threads on the subject, I started this little project because I was researching another subject -- wikipedia itself. So, that's my story -- I do not have high hopes you will believe me, but it's the truth. If someone wants to contact me offline I'd be happy to provide my email to discuss further, but this is as much anonymity breaking I wish to do on my public talk page. Please reconsider block. If not, then, I'll just walk away. I don't make my living from this and I don't need it -- that said, I've started to enjoy putting these pages together when I find a person I am researching isn't covered. I believe I have contributed positively to the community in this regard.Starshine60 (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Having reviewed the SPI and with the possilikely CU result, combined with some of the behavioral hallmarks of undeclared paid editing, I agree with the blocking administrator and SPI clerk that this account is likely a block evading sock, and that your reason for seeking an unblock doesn't address these concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 29 October 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.