User talk:Max266

November 2019

Hello, I'm Dawnseeker2000. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mount Tai earthquake have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Dawnseeker2000 20:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Max Hellberg

The article Max Hellberg has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Domeditrix (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sil Brook

The article Sil Brook has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not established, could not find non-trivial mentions of the subject.

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. Domeditrix (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sil Brook

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 Sil Brook, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 deleted 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. Praxidicae (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Sil Brook. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Sean McCracken moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Sean McCracken, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. – bradv🍁 03:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Barbie Castro for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barbie Castro 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/Barbie Castro until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Orange Mike | Talk 01:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Max266. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page User:Max266/Samantha Taylor (Photographer), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. GPL93 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sean McCracken (March 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Sean McCracken and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sean McCracken, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, 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.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Max266! Having an article 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! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Max266, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Max266|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. GSS ^💬 17:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Deb (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Hello,

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).

Max266 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I just found out that my account has been blocked on suspicions of being a sockpuppet. I am in an absolute state of shock that someone would accuse me of having multiple accounts. This is an outright lie. I only have one account called Max266, and I always do my best to follow Wikipedia guidelines and standards. I learned what the definition of a sockpuppet is from Wikipedia. And it states the following:

On Wikipedia, sock puppetry, or socking, refers to the misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts. To maintain accountability and increase community trust, editors are generally expected to use only one account. While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts, it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies.

Sock puppetry takes various forms:

Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address Creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions Using another person's account (piggybacking) Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users Persuading friends or colleagues to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)

None of this applies to me. I don't have multiple accounts, nor do I tell anybody to open up other accounts to do edits. I cannot believe that lying is allowed on a reputable website like Wikipedia. Max266 (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A simple denial is insufficient, as every sockpuppeteer denies doing so. You will need to provide a plausible explanation as to why we think you are using other accounts if you actually aren't. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Okay so from what I understand so far you want me to prove to you that I don’t have multiple accounts that you accused me of having, and also you want me to explain to you what would make you think that I have multiple accounts?? This does not make any sense at all. You can think what you want, but I don’t have any control over your thinking process. This does not make any sense at all!! I can think that someone did something but that does not prove that someone did something because you think so. That is called false accusation and defamation of character. I am shocked that something like this can have a place in America in 2020. I thought that honesty is the best policy, but I guess not in the Wikipedia organization. I have only one account and I do not understand why you accused me of having multiple accounts. I don’t even know the names of these accounts, and when you mentioned Gwan123 that was the first time I heard of this profile. I have no idea who these people are.

There is an extremely easy way to prove that I am innocent. Just check the IP addresses coming from these different profiles. They are probably all different. I only have one computer that I use to edit Wikipedia. Since these different profiles do not match the IP address of my computer, then that means they are not mine. Maybe these are just hackers or some other people on Wikipedia, who like to edit other people’s pages. In the Computer Age anything is possible.

I would really appreciate it if you could unblock me. What scares me the most is that the Wikipedia staff can block people, not based on proof but based on what they think. I would like to know what kind of multiple accounts I supposedly have.