User talk:Maxen Embry

Citations in Jack Schlossberg

You can see in these diffs [1][2][3] the work User:SNUGGUMS and myself have done to bring the citations in the article up to best practices. This includes adding an author and date, which are absolutely required under our core policy of WP:V. And many other problems: using appropriate templates like "cite news" and "cite magazine" versus "cite web". Correctly identifying the work, it is People (magazine) not "Peoplemag". Not using fake authors like "Reporter". No need for the |language=en parameter. Many other problems.

Please take your time composing citations. Citations are like 50% of it. We have given you some prime examples of best methods. You can follow those examples. It's a lot of work, takes time, has a learning curve, but it also ensures the citations, and by extension the prose you wrote and article itself, will remain valid and verifiable for years to come. -- GreenC 17:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is noted. Thank you. I was just using the automatic citation for my previous edits thinking it was foolproof and up to Wiki standards. Thanks again. Maxen Embry (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second all of what GreenC said here, and would like to add that many dates were incorrectly formatted in YYYY-MM-DD style. We should stick with either DMY or MDY depending on subject nationality, so for Schlossberg's case, it's best to use the lattermost as it aligns with prose and he's an American citizen. You definitely shouldn't rely solely on automatic citation for your changes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, references should be cited, not described. Article should be written around what's written in reliable sources rather than piece together multiple sources and drawing your own conclusion not directly supported by the sources themselves. Saying he's commented/written for publication A, publication B, C, D and citing those articles as the sources is undue coverage. Graywalls (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Maxen Embry. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Jack Schlossberg, 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 article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
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 Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
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, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. and Schlossberg people. Graywalls (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but this is just laughable. I’ve been editing since 2019 and Jack Schlossberg is just my latest hyperfixation since discovering him last July through social media. That’s also when a bunch of articles for him popped up because he webt kind of viral, so that was a good chance to edit with such an abundance of sources. I go through edits of biographies every 6 months or so if you go through my history. I’ve gone through Camille Kostek’s, Rob Gronkowski’s, Matty Healy’s, Gabbriette’s, etc. just because I saw their TV show or listened to their music recently. Not because I’m some PR. Haha.

I may have done some unintentional editorializing for flow of prose which I will own up to but to insinuate that I have a close relationship or being compensated to edit some privileged white man’s Wiki?! LMAO. This is just my hobby, and I’ve had too much time on my hands lately. Maxen Embry (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]