User talk:Defeedme

jonesbeach.com


You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * this is not spam what is going on here? jonesbeach.com has been THE go-to page for all long islanders for jones beach concert listings since 1996 - and ALSO the designated website for this wiki since wiki started in 2001 Defeedme (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you or any other accounts add it again, it will be sent to the spam blacklist, which I don't think you want. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (1) You don't get to make unblock requests while logged-out. Your IP is now blocked. (2) The history is irrelevant; external links don't get "tenure." Whether or not it's copyrighted is meaningless. It's a commercial site that doesn't have any official status, and as such doesn't meet any WP:EL criteria. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Just want to ask first if this is ok with you to add under "external links" at the bottom.
 * JonesBeach.com - Independent Guide Since 1998
 * Thanks Defeedme (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * this was sent on march 24 but no response:
 * Just want to ask first if this is ok with you to add under "external links" at the bottom.
 * - Independent Guide Since 1998
 * Thanks Defeedme (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Defeedme (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * this was sent on march 24 but no response:
 * Just want to ask first if this is ok with you to add under "external links" at the bottom.
 * - Independent Guide Since 1998
 * Thanks Defeedme (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Defeedme (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that you've been warned about adding it numerous times and subsquently blocked for spamming should make it clear that no, it's not OK. As promised above, the site has been added to our spam blacklist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * not sure why you are so hostile for no reason. It's not spam it's the original independent guide like many other type links on wikipedia that have no problems. I asked you on March 24 and you never responded. seems like there's ulterior motives here. Defeedme (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My best understanding of the objection to adding it is that the website is a sales place for tickets, rather than a source on the history of the location, or any other descriptive aspect. There may also be concerns that individuals could get scammed. I am not sure myself if I can vet their current repute as a sales place It is not safe for Wikipedia to direct/recommend people visit a website where we are uncertain they won’t get scammed. SecretName101 (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @SecretName101 We are way past that observation / opinion - and there is no "scamming" the links are an official resale marketplace. The current issue now is retaliation by this admin for unnecessary blacklisting my domain after totally ignoring my polite request. I feel my polite request was ignored on purpose as a trap. My domain is way more than tickets, it has been and STILL IS the de facto independent guide since 1996, way before Wikipedia even existed. To this day millions of Long Islanders who want to see a show at Jones Beach visit my trademarked site and it has been the real deal since 1996 never missing a "beat." I was not asking for it to replace the "official" website just an added link at the bottom considering the long history and continued usage to this day. Defeedme (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is unofficial. That is actually one thing at issue. It’s not an official distributor or partner of the venue. SecretName101 (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And the fact you just clarified to me that it is YOUR commercial website makes it even clearer that your insistence it be added to the project is spamming and a clear COI. SecretName101 (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Spam-only account
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion. 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:. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

is closed. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 07:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, it appears the new appeal is in limbo? 73.0.31.205 (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All UTRS requests are located in Limbo. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 16:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * lol! Defeedme (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

After discussion with blocking admin, unblocking. User agrees to, -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 16:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Unblocked. Welcome back. Logged in unblock log. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 16:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Deepfriedokra, thanks so much for all your help.
 * Just had a quick question, I thought the link jonesbeach.com was blacklisted?
 * best, Mike Defeedme (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is, and will remain so. The unblock conditions include arguing about the blacklisting. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking you. Defeedme (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that I suggested the unblock conditions in the first place, my input is relevant here. I will reblock you if you violate those conditions. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * really? according to Deepfriedokra, Daniel Case was the blocking admin & who was consulted for the unblock conditions.. I find this very interesting https://hackernoon.com/wikipedia-sucks-theres-a-solution-by-wikis-real-daddy Defeedme (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel was the last admin to change your block settings (where he removed talk page access). That's immaterial; as I said, those unblock conditions that Deepfriedokra mentions above were my suggestion. Any admin can reblock you. You claimed in your UTRS unblock requests that you were interested in making edits to other topic areas and listed some of those areas. Feel free to make those edits at any time. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting how you respond so quickly now but failed to respond at all when I asked a simple question over a month ago.. Are you going to block me if I ask why spam links (external) are allowed on both these pages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNC_Bank_Arts_Center and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Rocks_Amphitheatre Defeedme (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove any links that violate WP:EL. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * i'm in shock Defeedme (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Lia Thomas. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure why it was removed, it was in the public section and relevant to the article. Defeedme (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Defeedme. Wikipedia is all about summarizing what reliable sources have to say about a subject. Your own thoughts on Thomas are not suitable for the article. If you'd like to get a second opinion on this, consider posting at Talk:Lia Thomas, though a comment there could also be removed if it's not framed as a suggestion for improving the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * interesting - it's not my thoughts, its a public post that got thousands of likes. Oh well I tried. Defeedme (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because it got thousands of likes doesn't mean it's suitable. Stop spamming it CreecregofLife (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Because you don't agree with it now it's spam? jesus wikipedia is not fair anymore Defeedme (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop hand nuvola.svg Do not add that material to Talk:Lia Thomas again, per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTAFORUM. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok I won't, you asked me when I was going to add useful material I mentioned in my unblock request, so I tried. sorry for trying. Defeedme (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It was spam because you added it twice to Lia Thomas’s talkpage and twice to mine, because you couldn’t get that it wasn’t suitable. You added it because you don’t agree with how she is treated with respect, don’t come at us with complaints about being unfair CreecregofLife (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I was told to add it to the talk page because it wasn't suitable for the article, now it's not even allowed on the talk page? Wow and now you are telling me I can't complain when it's clearly unfair? amazing. Defeedme (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a number of issues here. I suspect that you know what they are but I'll set out the main ones. The text you keep on spamming is abusive of the living subject of a biographical article. The text you keep on spamming is unreferenced and uncorroborated. For all we know it might not be the words of the person you are attributing it to. Given its abusive nature, we can't be sure that this is not an attempt to make that person look abusive. By spamming that text in various places you are at best forum shopping and, quite possibly, being intentionally disruptive. If you really do want to complain, then you can take it to the Administrators Noticeboards where I very strongly expect that you will discover what WP:BOOMERANG is about. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The only issue I see here is it appears you don't agree with the text. It's a real person that wrote it, do you need his Social Security #? At this point you have made it very difficult for me to contribute, Sounds like I'm not even allowed to complain. I tried my best. Defeedme (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop pretending not to understand what the problem is. You can't post unreferenced abuse anywhere on Wikipedia. Just stop it now. You are already on final warning. Continuing to kvetch here will almost certainly get you blocked. DanielRigal (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you can't contribute without pushing a trans woman's existence as something to be debated, you can't make it our problem CreecregofLife (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. ''Since the unblock, you have made precisely one (1) constructive edit to an article, a whole bunch of grossly inappropriate ones to Talk pages and one edit to an article (a BLP!) that was nothing but an unreferenced and abusive rant. Intentionally or otherwise, the disruption you are causing greatly outweighs any good you are doing here. It is shocking to see such bad behaviour from somebody who was generously granted an unblock. If I was an admin I'd reblock you right now. I'm not an admin (and that's probably for the best). You have one last chance to contribute constructively. Please take it.'' DanielRigal (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Amazing how opinions are not allowed here. And everyone is against me for no reason. Defeedme (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Everyone against you "for no reason" after we explicitly explained our reasons? CreecregofLife (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm afraid to contribute anything. Defeedme (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopaedia not a webforum for abusive "opinions". Either edit our articles constructively, in line with our policies, or just stop. It's your choice. We have to defend our project, and the time of its volunteer editors and administrators, from those who would disrupt it or misdirect it for their own ends. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As nobody else has mentioned it, I'll ask you to read WP:STICK as it may help to explain where we are in this process. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Klete Keller
Please follow WP:BRD. The changes you want to make are against a long-standing version of the lead. It's okay to make a change, but once it's reverted, you must discuss. Please don't edit war. Wes sideman (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Long Standing? Have you ever been a competitive swimmer? his swimming career is a far more important fact in his life and the only reason he is in the news (which may or may not be reliable), Jan 6 does not define who he is as a person and his Olympic accomplishments. The correct term is competitive swimmer, not competition. See other swimmers wiki page like Michael Phelps and Mark Spitz, they use competitive swimmer. Additionally he has not been sentenced yet for over 1 year. Defeedme (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please move this discussion to the article's talk page. Also, please read WP:BRD, where you will find it's Wikipedia policy to discuss any further changes you want to make before you make that edit again. Putting your arguments in an edit summary is not a substitute for discussion. If you refuse to talk part in discussion, and revert to your preferred version again, you can possibly be blocked for edit warring. Thank you. Wes sideman (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * nice, I see you like to threaten people. Shows your character. Defeedme (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Klete Keller. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Wes sideman (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * I cannot believe you are edit warring over the order of his conviction in the lede. You need to stop as well. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you, at least someone else has acknowledged how picayune this is. This is a MINOR edit - I based the corrected lead on Both Mark Spitz and Michael Phelps wiki pages which shows the correct usage of "competitive swimmer" (not competition) and five-time Olympic medalist, which this format is used in the lead for Olympic champions on a regular basis. Defeedme (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Pleasse stop
You have been edit warring and making personal attacks. If you continue, you may be blocked without further warning. Discussing does not mean brawling and then editing as you wish without agreement from other editors. Please see WP:DR. I have been asked as unblocking admin if I feel your actions merit reblocking. As I see a user talk page full of contentiousness and unwillingness to collaborate, I have no objection to reblocking you now. Courtesy ping. I will also consider a s Discretionary Sanctions warning. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Noting that it looks like Defeedme was restoring status quo ante. Wes sideman needs to justify the proposed changes. Both need to stop and take it to WP:BLPN or WP:DRN -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a minor edit to the lead, correcting ERRORS and order of importance in his life. which is more in line with other Olympic Gold Medalists. Not sure why this is such a big issue for this person wes sideman.. Klete Kellers swimming career and medalling in 3 World Olympic Games far outweighs the Jan 6 local disruption, this is a fact, not opinion. Defeedme (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022 block
 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. tedder (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Despite warnings (and even participation), you've gone ahead and revert-warred on Klete Keller. Defeedme, please show some understanding of why this edit warring and tendentious editing is problematic before considering requesting unblock.tedder (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * what is going on here - my edit has been accepted. There is no edit war. Defeedme (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, whether or not the edit was a good edit doesn’t negate edit warring behavior. If there was a disagreement that could not be reconciled in the talk page, my understanding is that the best course of action would be to go elsewhere on Wikipedia to request other parties chime in instead of edit warring over a matter. To be unblocked, I think the user should demonstrate understanding of edit warring as an issue and a willingness not to participate in it, rather than just saying that it was justified because someone else later agreed with their edit. SecretName101 (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I also recommend that, if later unblocked, the user be very cautious to heed guidance of other users when they alert them of disruptive behavior. Rather than persisting in reposting content or continuing in editing behavior that more experienced users are informing them is violating policy. If they have trouble understanding how their behavior or edits are inappropriate, they need to pause and ask for clarity. Perhaps request an uninvolved admin chime in and make things clearer for them/judge the situation.
 * Instead, the approach that has apparently been taken by this user is to completely disregard what they are being told.
 * in previous instances it was posting content that others were telling them had no place. In this latest instance it was the behavior of edit warring.
 * I want this user to succeed as a helpful contributor if they are unblocked rather than finding themselves quickly in another block. But they seriously will need to take a more receptive tact. SecretName101 (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, want to bring to the users attention that they claimed copyright ownership of a Getty images photo of of Klete Keller that they uploaded to commons and then added to the article infobox for Keller. It is unacceptable to do that. SecretName101 (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting is this trolling the last time this user was unblocked. Since the last unblock, I see no cessation of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * but your retaliation is allowed. of course. Defeedme (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You know what I find fascinating here at Wikipedia is the selective enforcement which is a common theme. First my polite simple question gets ignored by an admin @Ohnoitsjamie (probably on purpose) then I immediately get banned/blacklisted, basically setup like a trap. Then As @Deepfriedokra and @DanielRigal have stated "it takes 2 to tango" and @Wes sideman was asked to stop as well. Yet his account was never even warned and mine gets indefinitely banned - also this is not the first time @Wes sideman has been edit warring for no good reason. My extensive experience and expertise is in swimming, which I CLEARLY stated in my previous appeal. But when I edit something I know for a fact is correct, I get penalized - yet the other party who was ultimately wrong gets away Scott free. Welp, I tried my best here to "build an encyclopedia" but it appears you don't want my help even though my last edit was 100% valid and correct. Defeedme (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't get banned, you got blocked. This is not a "penalty"--we are protecting the beautiful project that so many of us spend so much time on. I looked over your work and it is clear that you couldn't be bothered to invest the time and energy in learning what the guidelines here are, and what you can and cannot do. In other words, you did not try your best. What you cannot do, for instance, is exhibiting this kind of uncollegial behavior, full of personal attacks. Having to pay attention to these talk page posts is just a waste of our resources, and the shots below the belt in them are uncalled for. Talk page access revoked. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Toddst1 (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)