User talk:MaxMedia123

This is MaxMedia123's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Seabelo Chabo John (September 26)[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 show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

no evidence of any notability?

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Seabelo Chabo John and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Executive Media! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation 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) 21:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to fix first[edit]

Hi there,

Your Mentor here. There's a few things you need to do, pretty urgently, and definitely before making any other edits.

1) From your username, I imagine that you are working for Executive Media - in some form or another. This means you must disclose your paid editing status (wikipedia defines "paid editing" very broadly). On your userpage, state your employer, which pages you will be editing (that you have any connection to)

2) After that, you need to rename yourself, as you can't have a name that suggests more than one person has control of it. So you could have "Alex at Executive Media" (alex doesn't need to be your actual name - in fact, I'd suggest otherwise). You can do this at WP:RENAME, as you have a registered email address. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Seabelo Chabo John (September 26)[edit]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Ingenuity was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Does not appear to be at all notable, possible undisclosed paid editing.

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022[edit]

Hello Executive Media. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Seabelo Chabo John, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged 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:Executive Media. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Executive Media|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, do not edit further until you answer this message. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not paid. References taken from primary sources. MaxMedia123 (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxMedia123 why would you call yourself "ExecutiveMedia" and then write about this individual?

(As a later note, primary sources cannot provide notability, but I'm more concerned about demonstrating you aren't a paid editor at the moment, as is @Ingenuity) Nosebagbear (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. ExecutiveMedia sounds like we are being paid so we changed to MaxMedia123. Not employed, contracted, or affiliated with media companies. Thanks. MaxMedia123 (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we'? Wikipedia accounts are strictly single person use. Theroadislong (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is single person use. We referee to my mentor Nosebagbear and I. MaxMedia123 (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their name is "Nosebagbear" and they are our mentor since we are new. We and their is not to misgender anyone. MaxMedia123 (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you against pronouns? MaxMedia123 (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxMedia123 that definitely doesn't hold up, as sounds like we are being paid and then saying We referee to my mentor Nosebagbear and I doesn't hold up. Assuming, of course, that you don't think I am being paid? Why would you use "we" for that first part unless there is indeed a team in play?

I also note that you didn't answer my question as to why you originally went for "ExecutiveMedia" and write about this individual Nosebagbear (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I chose Executive Media first as a pseudonym. I chose to write about this individual to increase diversity. I am not being paid. And you seenm to be agains pronouns and are prejudiced. MaxMedia123 (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxMedia123 Prejudiced against companies? That is weird. David10244 (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Draft:Seabelo Chabo John. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing I was attacked too and lied upon to have been "paid". Can you address that too? MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing It deters many diverse users like me who advocate for diversity to be attacked by bigoted gate keepers who you defend and not address. Do not address one side that is responding to a false accusation instead f addressing the lie that was told in the first place. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot know whether you are a paid editor or not, and don't wish to comment on that. If you aren't, then if it's any consolation, I know from first-hand experience how frustrating it is to be accused of it. But even then, that is no reason to attack others personally — as the saying goes, 'play the ball, not the player'. If you continue with this line of attacks, you will very soon find yourself sanctioned, and that helps no one. Sometimes it is better to just let things settle for a while, go drink a cup of mint tea or whatever you do to chill. :) (And I hope you take this message in the constructive spirit in which it was intended.) Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing This message is certainly not in the constructive spirit, and you did not intend that. You need to remove the false "paid editor" and not overlook it. That was a personal attack against me. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazingRealtors is one of the categories not all. It shows that @Ingenuity and @Theroadislong just edited it 2 seconds ago to remove the other citations. This is not a personal attack against them. It exposes their lac of professionalism. Also The "paid" edits are still there. You can't make this up. Hilarious. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, since you only want to attack and insult me, too, then I think we're done here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked from editing. For reasons I cannot disclose publicly, I believe you have a clear paid relationship with Mr. John. You must disclose this. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The action was taken. Executive Media was a pseudonym. He thought I am a company. So I changed it to Max Media. That was long addressed but he did not rectify the note which still says I am paid. MaxMedia123 (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe "Executive Media" is just a pseudonym. I will give you one last chance to disclose. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for the following behaviour: I had been going to hold off from blocking you for personal attacks in calling a user "bigoted" with zero indication of such. DoubleGrazing's engagement originally kept me from doing so, but you then repeated the attack and then continued to state they were personally attacking you. This, combined, with calling users prejudiced without basis indicate you will not be able to productively interact with other users on Wikipedia..

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 ~~~~}}. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear You are an enabler. I did not get paid. MaxMedia123 (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot What makes you not believe Executive Media is not a pseudonym? MaxMedia123 (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say why publicly as it would violate policy(WP:OUTING). 331dot (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (This block notice edit-conflicted with a number of posts above (as did this edit). It can be removed by any admin without further recourse to me if they feel a net benefit can be gained, or if it was unwarranted/insufficiently warranted) Nosebagbear (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is also clear undisclosed paid editing. I cannot post why I believe this publicly, but will tell an admin privately upon request. You are free to make an unblock request as described, but if your attacks continue, your ability to edit this page may be withdrawn. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot That is very false. Where is the unblock request? MaxMedia123 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the instrutions given to you in the block notice above to make an unblock request. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot - I'm just going to note the outcome of The recent BLOCKEVIDENCE RfC, the outcome of which is why I am only "90%" confident of the UPE issue and not entirely. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nosebagbear Thanks, I wasn't aware of that discussion. Given that, I hereby reduce my claim to potential paid editing. I'm not at present able to take further action. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear This is not a personal attack. Your ill-advised campaign will not be successful. I am not being paid and there is no reason to suspect that. All claims must produce evidence for this persona attack agains writers of color. White supremacy must fall. The 90% or 10% confidence based on a pseudonym is highly unprofessional. I would like to be unblocked and cone contributing t the diversity of publications and on this platform without unfair gatekeeping. MaxMedia123 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear This is not a personal attack. Your ill-advised campaign will not be successful. I am not being paid and there is no reason to suspect that. All claims must produce evidence for this personal attack against writers of color. White supremacy must fall. The 90% or 10% confidence based on a pseudonym is highly unprofessional. I would like to be unblocked and continue contributing to the diversity of publications and on this platform without unfair gatekeeping. MaxMedia123 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2022 (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).

MaxMedia123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here defending self agains personal attack and being cited falsely for a personal attack. 1. Being accused of being paid. 2 Administrator cleaning Executive Media is not a pseudonym and will share privately with an administrator why they do not believe me. 3. Unprofessional handling of diversity publishing issues on Wikipedia enabling white supremacy. MaxMedia123 (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Ignoring your insults, it is absurd to say that "Executive Media" has no relationship to Seabelo Chabo John when Seabelo Chabo John publicly advertises a business relationship with them on the internet. Please consider your next actions carefully, as further personal attacks will only result in an inability to edit this page any further. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2022 (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.

@NosebagbearThat is very false. Where is the unblock request? MaxMedia123 (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)'[reply]

{{unblock}}

You only need one open request at a time. Someone will review it. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to duplicate your posts. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Firstly, I think you duplicated your message above that led to this reply). The basis for my block is fairly clearcut. You were being assessed for paid editing by both myself and two other editors on the basis of having an organisational name, while creating a new article about a person using unsuitable sources. You then stated you weren't part of a company by that name, but failed to provide any reason why you would have selected it to start with. While we were talking to see if we could decide one way or the other if you were an undisclosed paid editor you repeatedly accused theroadislong of being a bigot, in a draft article, and then me of being prejudiced. That is, the block is on the basis of personal attacks, not of confirmed paid editing. Your more recent comments suggest that this is in aid of white supremacy and is an attack against all "writers of color", which is not aiding your ability to comply with our civility and no personal attacks policies. In any case, a non-involved admin will review any case for an unblock. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NosebagbearAnother incorrect statement. You can't make this up. That is incorrect. The reasons for selecting the 6 individuals (4 males, 2 females) who are in the list for promoting diversity were mentioned. The platform needs to reduce bias and personal attacks and false suspicions of writers of color. You seem to be ill-advised. This is not a personal attack but a clarification for your to stop acting upon bias. I am waiting for the reviewer to unblock so I can continue promoting diversity on this platform. You as an unfair gatekeeper are stalling that and your campaign will not be successful. I promise. MaxMedia123 (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have no way to know the race or color of any user. If you are a writer of color, that's wonderful. It's also not relevant to this block. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2022 (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).

MaxMedia123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reason stated

Decline reason:

This edit is sufficient to justify keeping this account blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:50, 27 September 2022 (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 only need one open request at a time. Someone will review it. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to duplicate your posts. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Firstly, I think you duplicated your message above that led to this reply). The basis for my block is fairly clearcut. You were being assessed for paid editing by both myself and two other editors on the basis of having an organisational name, while creating a new article about a person using unsuitable sources. You then stated you weren't part of a company by that name, but failed to provide any reason why you would have selected it to start with. While we were talking to see if we could decide one way or the other if you were an undisclosed paid editor you repeatedly accused theroadislong of being a bigot, in a draft article, and then me of being prejudiced. That is, the block is on the basis of personal attacks, not of confirmed paid editing. Your more recent comments suggest that this is in aid of white supremacy and is an attack against all "writers of color", which is not aiding your ability to comply with our civility and no personal attacks policies. In any case, a non-involved admin will review any case for an unblock. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NosebagbearAnother incorrect statement. You can't make this up. That is incorrect. The reasons for selecting the 6 individuals (4 males, 2 females) who are in the list for promoting diversity were mentioned. The platform needs to reduce bias and personal attacks and false suspicions of writers of color. You seem to be ill-advised. This is not a personal attack but a clarification for your to stop acting upon bias. I am waiting for the reviewer to unblock so I can continue promoting diversity on this platform. You as an unfair gatekeeper are stalling that and your campaign will not be successful. I promise. MaxMedia123 (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate Executive Media adverstising the individual does not guarantee payment or conflict of interest. I changed pseudonym to MaxMedia at the request of the previous reviewer. MaxMedia123 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|reason= Administrator says Executive Media advertised individual on the internet. This does not guarantee affiliation.}}

{unblock|reason= Administrator says Executive Media advertised individual on the internet. This does not guarantee affiliation or payment. Diversity is needed and unfair gatekeeping must be stopped.}}

Personal attacks[edit]

I have to say I’m astonished that this has escalated to such a ferocious level of personal attacks whilst I was walking the coast path in real life this afternoon. I declined a draft which was a single sentence long “Seabelo Chabo John is a New York State certified Realtor” no reviewer would ever have accepted this and had it been moved to main space it would have been speedy deleted within minutes. The following personal attack here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Seabelo_Chabo_John&diff=1112680404&oldid=1112565116&diffmode=source]] calling me a bigot is just extraordinary and clearly unjustified I sincerely hope our paths do not cross again. Theroadislong (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Seabelo Chabo John[edit]

Hello, MaxMedia123. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Seabelo Chabo John, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Seabelo Chabo John[edit]

Hello, MaxMedia123. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Seabelo Chabo John".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]