User talk:Mymedia334

March 2024
Hello, I'm Jamedeus. I noticed that you recently removed content from Wetumpka, Alabama without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I made a post during the deletion that the content was deleted for page vandalism. Mymedia334 (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your note was added to the text of the article itself, please use an edit summary in the future. It's also not clear how the content you removed was vandalism - it covers a real event and is well cited. It probably isn't notable enough to be mentioned in the lead, but this is a separate issue. You might want to review the vandalism policy. Jamedeus (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Wetumpka, Alabama, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Please stop harassing my talk page. I am not interested in your comments. Mymedia334 (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wetumpka, Alabama. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The Original posted agreed that this content didn't belong on the Wikipedia page, as he stated on my talk page. He's using several accounts to make vandalism posts on that page.  He's clearly better at using Wikipedia than I am, and now I'm blocked from making the corrections. Mymedia334 (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "the original". If it's the first post on your talk page, I don't see agreement that the content didn't belong; I see not clear how the content you removed was vandalism and probably isn't notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. And in accusing them of using several accounts to "vandalize", you must be referring to my account and to another editor's account, which like mine, has over 10,000 edits on a wide variety of articles, spanning over a decade. Not your typical sock behaviour. If you want the block lifted, first and foremost you need to convince an administrator that if they lift the block, problematic editing will not resume. Part of that is convincing them that you are now aware of the rules, policies, conventions, etc. and see why the block was placed (don't even think about saying "for no reason" or "because I'm being persecuted"), and that your new understanding enables you to stop. As for becoming familiar with how things work at Wikipedia, I'll get you started:
 * Civility: civility is expected when dealing with others; unsubstatiated claims of using multiple accounts, vandalizing, telling others to "go away" undermine the collaborative nature of the project.
 * What is not vandalism: what you have described as vandalism from the get-go is not even close to it
 * Reliable sources: this is the go to document for using reliable sources to support content, and what's "unsourced"
 * Dispute resolution: outlines approved procedures for resolving disputes as opposed to futile edit warring
 * Good luck.  signed, Willondon (talk)  17:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The first line in the post says that the two ladies that were arrested were arrested for feeding cats. That is 100% vandalism and false.  They were NOT arrested for feeding cats.  This is a clear attempt to vandalize this page. Mymedia334 (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your response is only four minutes after my post. Are you sure you had time to read those articles thoroughly? Especially What is not vandalism. I can't say as you're off to a good start.  signed, Willondon (talk)  18:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I did.
 * "Misinformation, accidental
 * A user who, in good faith, adds content to an article that is factually inaccurate in the belief that it is accurate, is trying to contribute to and improve Wikipedia, not vandalize it. If you believe inaccurate information has been added to an article in good faith, remove it once you are certain it is inaccurate, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has added it." Mymedia334 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am frustrated that lies "misinformation" is allowed to sit on that page and that I'm the one who is banned. Mymedia334 (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Throw in the Violating the three-revert rule as well. Q  T C 18:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand that the same user using three different accounts is not seen as a violation of this rule? An attack on three fronts is still an attack.  And the information included is still false. Mymedia334 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you please be more explict? What users are you accusing of socking and when?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Jamedeus, ThaddeusSholto, JeffSpaceman. The list of "misinformation" edits on this page in multiple sections by multiple accounts to fly under the radar of detection seems pretty coordinated.  These ladies were NOT arrested for feeding cats, although this is the false narrative that is portrayed online.  The arrests are factually listed in multiple articles and yet my attempts to fix this has gotten me banned.  I understand there's a list of rules here and I am willing to learn.  But what is being posted and allowed to post is also a clear violation of Wikipedia rules. Mymedia334 (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was afraid that was what you were thinking. That is a preposterous personal attack, and I have revoked Talk page access because of it and some of your other comments on this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)