Just wanted to thank you for all the census updates you’ve done. It’s an under appreciated job, but an important one! Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the census update, but please use the same style of citation that was already present in the article. You can automatically harmonize whitespace in citations using this script. SounderBruce 03:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, please use the script to update the reference also. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 18:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you :) this is exactly the way it should be done :) Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 04:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, please fill out the citations. It would be extremely helpful to include the Census Bureau as publisher and add May 2019 (the date for the release of city-level datasets). SounderBruce 23:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please format your citations using a template to avoid link rot. See my example at Stanwood, Washington#Demographics. SounderBruce 05:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop adding data for the VILLAGE of Mamaroneck to the article for the TOWN of Mamaroneck. Thanks ɱ (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop deleting infobox parameters on the page Lexington, SC. There is a place for census data for both the 2010 official data and the 2018 estimation. Stop deleting relevant content. Any further edits will be considered vandalism (Nicholemacgregor (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

Do not put the 2018 numbers into the infbox unless you have the correct erefernce to support them. The one you're putting in goes to a 404 page. No reference, no numbers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The same is true of all your 2018 numbers. I am rolliong them all back. Do not restore them without includng the correct reference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Good, now that you've fixed the reference for the Irvington article, please do the same for the thousands of other article where you added 2018 figures with ther wrong references. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I hope you're planning on fixing all the edits you made with the wrong reference, and not just the ones I deleted. You are responsible for them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding some alleged broken links that you have used as citations. The thread is User:TylerKutschbach - Mass rollback needed. Your participation in that discussion would be appreciated. ST47 (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this edit, after issues raised by other editors, you used a source that provides a specific number for the municipality in question. Yet in this edit, you return to the status quo ante of adding a generic source that points to data sets across the nation. Why not use more specific -- either city level or state level -- for each article, rather than merely pointing to a page that has no direct access to the data? The concerns raised by other editors regarding the source backing up the specific census estimate is legitimate.

This page from the Census Bureau has tables for each state that shows the exact data for each municipality. Why not use these in your sources? Alansohn (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At Morgan County, Ohio, you reverted my edit and added that Morgan County "is a stronghold Republican county". What is a "stronghold"? What is your source to support that this county is a "stronghold"?

You also wrote "Democrats have only won the county two times total in presidential elections, all in years where the party won nationally by a landslide". What's a "landslide"? What is your source to support this?

When you revert another editor, please leave an edit summary to explain why. Also, please do not add unsourced editorials. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. You appear to be edit warring on behalf of edits made by your IP address User:24.140.79.53 Magnolia677 (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the Austin, Texas article, you updated the population estimate without changing the old citation for that estimate. I have fixed that, but please remember to update cited sources when you make changes to things like population estimates. - Donald Albury 02:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Archer1234. I noticed that you made one or more edits to an article, Richmond, Virginia, concerning the updates of review statistics, box office numbers, sports statistics, or some other frequently updated data with a fixed web address, but you did not update the |access-date= parameter in the citation template. The |access-date= parameter is the full date when the content pointed to by the URL was last verified to be working and supporting the text being cited in the article. This means that the parameter needs to be updated whenever the content is updated. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Archer1234 (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Howdy hello! I see that you recently made an edit to Prescott Valley, Arizona, but you didn't provide a source. I've undone the edit, but you can feel free to re-do it as long as you have a reliable source. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mifflinburg, Pennsylvania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2010 census (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Chevy Chase Village, Maryland, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. You forgot to insert a closing ref tag </ref>, and thereby broke the census population infobox in the Demographics section in Chevy Chase Village, Maryland. Using the Show preview button would have prevented this mistake. Slow down, you are editing too fast. Result of your not using the preview button - Demographics section. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Arizona, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please update the census in Topeka, Kansas, like you are doing other communities. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you see this request? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, TylerKutschbach,

Thank you for creating 1916 United States presidential election in Alabama.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please add references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Amkgp)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Amkgp (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, TylerKutschbach,

Thank you for creating 1924 United States presidential election in Kentucky.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please add references

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Amkgp)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Amkgp (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, TylerKutschbach,

Thank you for creating 1924 United States presidential election in Delaware.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please add references

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Amkgp)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Amkgp (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for this article! Unfortunately I can't mark it as reviewed because it doesn't cite any sources. Can you add some?

Also, a problem with U.S. presidential election articles is that many links have been set up (e.g. in the main 1924 United States presidential election article) on the assumption that articles would be created in the format "United States presidential election in North Carolina, 1924" not "1924 United States presidential election in North Carolina"-there was a decision to change the naming format a few years back. So when you create one of these articles it's a good plan to set up a redirect for links that have already been set up to the old-format name. Hope that makes sense! Blythwood (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, TylerKutschbach

Thank you for creating 1924 United States presidential election in Mississippi.

User:Dps04, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Dps04)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dps04 (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope you know edit wars are not allowed or respected on Wikipedia? I've been overhauling this article, and included the earliest population count, from when the city was first settled. I stated this in my edit summaries twice, and you clearly didn't even read it, nonetheless respond. Please respect the wishes of the primary article editors, and understand that when people disagree with you, constant reverting isn't going to help, and is just going to land you banned from the site. It's why we have talk pages, please use them. ɱ (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With no response, and it's clear you're editing further, somehow ignoring this? I am opening up a discussion into your behavior here. ɱ (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry that I keep reverting.TylerKutschbach

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --ɱ (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As in this edit for Jersey City, New Jersey, why do you provide a link to a generic landing page here, rather than point to specific sources for the specified state (and for the city, where populationis greater than 5,000)? You have access to the sources, why not make it infinitely easier for a reader to actually find the source, rather than have to poke around on the Census Bureau's landing page? Alansohn (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, when signing the end of you posts, it's much better if you use four tildes (~~~~). This will produce a standard format with your username and time stamp in a standard format. You can customise your signature in you preference within some limitations if you wish. See WP:Signatures for more information. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tyler - First of all, huge thank you for taking on the task of updating the US city articles to their 2019 estimated populations. I wanted to give you a heads-up about the population density figure in the cities' infoboxes. Right now, your script updates the comment next to the figure from "2018 est." to "2019 est.", but the density is not actually getting updated. Would you consider either calculating the new density or having the script keep the comment that the figure is from the 2018 estimate? I recommend just keeping the 2018 comment unless you would like to calculate the densities by hand. There is an "auto" function for pop density, but unfortunately it incorrectly calculates based on total area rather than land area. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please include |publisher=United States Census Bureau in your estimate citation. Or better yet, just use the following simple template:

<ref name="Census-Estimate">((cite web |date=May 2020 |title=Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in Washington: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019 |url=https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-total-cities-and-towns.html |publisher=United States Census Bureau |accessdate=))</ref>

Incomplete citations are not conducive for verifiability. SounderBruce 06:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I got the results by county off of Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. The site is here: https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/. The actual maps I created by using templates from this user. I used the online SVG editor Vectr to recolor the counties based on vote margins using the standard colors for those margins already in use on Wikipedia (I use a map of the 2016 presidential election in Mississippi for this task as it has the largest distribution of colors). WhittleMario (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop reverting my edits to such tables, as you did with Cook County, Illinois. The new templates have consensus as seen here and here, and are better in that they are sortable. If you disagree with their implementation please create a discussion in the appropriate places but do not revert them without clear consensus in that direction. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There appears to be a dispute with this. How about we take this to Third Opinion or the dispute-resolution noticeboard? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Third Opinion sounds fine. TylerKutschbach
  • Cool, thanks, I have directed the third opinion here. FOR THE THIRD OPINION: The main diffs in this dispute are in the histories of Cook County, Illinois, with some ancillary disputes in La Paz County, Arizona and Carson City, Nevada, as well as the links above I have included. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third opinion: Per policy, consensus decisions made at a Wikiproject such as those linked above do not create an encyclopedia-wide consensus which requires something to be done one way or another in articles throughout the encyclopedia. Consensus decisions made at WikiProjects have no more effect than an essay. See this from the Consensus policy:

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay."

And also this from the WikiProject Council guide, which has been approved as a guideline:

"However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay."

In light of those policies the consensuses reached at those Wikiprojects are merely nonbinding essays suggesting how members of those projects ought to consider go about formatting tables. How they are to actually be formated in any particular mainspace article must, however, be determined by consensus upon an article-by-article basis. If a standard applicable throughout Wikipedia is desired, the WP:PROPOSAL procedure should be used to form a formal policy or guideline with the proper location for that attempt to be at an existing policy or guideline page such as an appropriate location in the Manual of Style, not at a Wikiproject. As for these particular articles, consensus needs to be reached on their individual talk pages. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thank you for your feedback. I'll take this to the proposals Village Pump shortly; I don't think discussions on the individual articles are necessary or desirable, as this is about templates, not the pages on which they are transcluded. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for your information on the 1880 to 1908 county results. They were obtained from .xlsx files of Frédéric Salmon’s US presidential election maps for 1880^[1] and for all subsequent years up to 1908. If you pay an extra 15 euros (on PayPal) you can get full minor party results which are frequently necessary as in many cases third-party candidates outpolled one or the other major party and in 1892 some states did not have both major parties on the ballot.^[2] The votes may have some differences from those on Dave Leip’s Atlas – whose direct sources are much more expensive for someone with a fairly limited budget like myself. luokehao, 3 January 2021, 13:27 (UTC)

An article you recently created, 1916 United States presidential election in Kentucky, 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. John B123 (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have also moved 1920 United States presidential election in Kentucky to Draft:1920 United States presidential election in Kentucky for the same reasons. --John B123 (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by not creating articles without references (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. --John B123 (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft has no references.

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:1920 United States presidential election in Kentucky 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:1920 United States presidential election in Kentucky, 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, TylerKutschbach! 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How long? When? Looks hmm? And straight sharp shiney things are great and pretty fun. Only thing I fear is my father God. Do you? How are you? MerryLeeGrace1975 (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello.

Please stop capitalizing words that aren't proper nouns. See WP:Capitalization.

I mentioned this in a previous revert, so you're not unaware of it. If you keep doing this, you will be reported.

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Clallam County, Washington. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Schazjmd (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is with your edits with the government section of counties? You're removing the hundredths value with no modification to rounding the tenths value. Are these automated like your population density update edits? You need to be aware that these edits are considered disruptive. Please pay more attention to how you're editing these articles. – The Grid (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Washington County, Maryland, you may be blocked from editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for all your hard work with election data. I was curious about the data you added with this edit at Kenton County, Kentucky. I looked at the source cited, and was only able to find Kentucky's state-wide results for 1880, not the county results. Where should I look? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can look at the Wikipedia page for the 1880 county results for Kentucky.

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, per WP:UGC. Where in the source you cited is the data to support your edit at Kenton County, Kentucky? Thank you again. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you've gone back to editing. Could you please answer my question. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The user Luokehao found the results on US Election Atlas.

That's not what I asked you. You have made--literally--thousands of edits citing https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/ as your source. A few minutes ago you made this edit at Alexandria, Virginia where you added 1880 election results. Were all these edits, in fact, unsourced??? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TylerKutschbach,

Please come to ANI and address the complaint about your editing of election statistics. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Randolph County, North Carolina. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. 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: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[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).

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

---

Request reason:

I want to be unblocked because I’m not doing anything wrong, I didn’t put any unsourced content because the county election results I’ve been inserting are mentioned by their state on each county by looking at the pages like 1908 presidential election in North Carolina I added the 1908 results and that’s where I found the results and Magnolia677 doesn’t believe me and keeps removing them. TylerKutschbach (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We don't need to believe you, we need you to provide citations from reliable sources. And you haven't been doing that. Yamla (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[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.

The onus is on you to prove that you aren't engaging in sneaky-numbers-vandalism by providing inline citations in the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also asked this Wikipedia user named Luokehao where he found the results. He was also the user who added the county results for each state election by year. TylerKutschbach (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You added data for 1896 and 2020 election results for Cumberland County, New Jersey in this edit, which was reverted in this edit as "unsourced content". While the removal violated WP:PRESERVE, it's your failure to add sources in the first place that created the problem. If you have a source, add the source so that any editor reading the article knows exactly where you got the information. Don't demand an unblock by saying that you had found the data in a source; ask for an unblock by saying that you will add a source for each and every edit going forward. How many warnings does it take to understand that adding unsourced material is unacceptable? Alansohn (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Going through this talk page, I and several other editors have asked for years that you provide sources and you have complied only sporadically. You have the sources and you know how to add them. If you add the required sources with each and every edit, you will have the likelihood of a long and productive future. If you cannot do that on a consistent basis, your future on Wikipedia may be very short. Alansohn (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the block should be indefinite until TylerKutschbac understands why they are being asked to provide sources. Additionally, his first block was to get his attention about discussing his edits. I have been questioning this person's edits for a while now and the main onus has been verifying sources. Add that to the edits you make, along with your edit summary, and you're golden. – The Grid (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TylerKutschbach. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 5 days for abusing multiple accounts. 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. 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: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  Vanjagenije (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Hunt County, Texas. You have to stop adding unsourced content, or content sourced by some "secret source" only you know about. This is not acceptable. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for this edit at Penobscot County, Maine, where you added the presidential election results from 1880. You cited this source, though I have been unable to locate the 1880 presidential results for Penobscot County. Could you please point me to the exact URL where those results are located? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For 1880 here’s the link for it http://geoelections.free.fr/EU/elec_comtes/1880.htm TylerKutschbach (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is the link to the specific results for Penobscot County, Maine? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://geoelections.free.fr/USA/elec_comtes/1880.htm if you go to this link you will see a link saying xlsx at the bottom and you will receive the county results for 25 euros. TylerKutschbach (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since your block ended yesterday, you have added about 200 election results for specific counties, over a range of historic election years. At a cost of 25 Euros per year, per county, that would mean that--just in the past two days--you have spent about 5,000 Euros, or $6,083.00 US dollars, to purchase the sources to support these edits. Is this correct? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn’t spent to buy the results. That’s expensive to buy. TylerKutschbach (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TylerKutschbach, what do you think my next question will be? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the question would be who did get the results? TylerKutschbach (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is very important other editors be able to verify the huge volumes of data you add to Wikipedia each day. What is your source please? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Magnolia677: I got curious and found the website cites Presidential Ballots, 1836-1892 by WD Burnham. The Internet Archive allows you to borrow the book for an hour if you have an account here. I decided to review the data - pages 502-503, column for 1880: Democrats - 3,418; Whig/Republican - 8,186; Other - 1,157; Total - 15,650. It's typewriter tabulated so OCR only works on grabbing the book's references. – The Grid (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Grid: Thanks for looking that up. TylerKutschbach entered: Republican - 52.2% (8,186); Democratic - 40.2% (6,307); Third party - 7.6% (1,186) - for a total of 15,679. The Republican number was the same, and the total was pretty close, but there is still a discrepancy, and TylerKutschbach still hasn't said where they are getting their numbers from. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Magnolia677: I noticed that too but I want to give benefit of the doubt that they put X,186 by accident because it took me a while to get my barring with the tabulated data. I just checked the other years and yeah I'm seeing the same discrepancies. This is a practice of how verifiability is done. – The Grid (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TylerKutschbach, with this edit you added historic demographic data for Kennebec County, Maine. You cited this source to support your edit. I looked at that source and it did not support your edit. What page did you find your data on? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please answer my question. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=3359 I finally found where the results are coming from. Here’s the Maine results from 1904 and you can even find the other state results for each county as well. TylerKutschbach (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I finally found where the results are coming from" What were you actually using before?! This is getting insane. We're asking you to provides sources so other editors can simply verify them - it shouldn't be like pulling teeth here. – The Grid (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this edit, you added this source as a reference, but with no specificity of what is being used to source the data. You need to be far more specific in the references being used. Alansohn (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alansohn: See discussion above. – The Grid (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

You recently undid my revert without any explanation... I reverted your edit because a number of your percentages do not add up to 100%... for example, 1920, you claim 60.1% voted Republican, 39.4% Democrat, and 0.6% Other, which adds up to 100.1% of the total votes... the same is true for a number of other years, as well as your changes to the number of votes cast to some years (without any citations changed)... can you please explain how you are claiming +100% of the votes without any citations? - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone told me that for the percentages you round the tenths like for example 60.07% that’s 60.1% or if it’s 60.04% that’s 60.0% TylerKutschbach (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not what you did at all, they are already to the tenth, not hundredths... and that still does not explain changing the number of votes cast... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I just noticed this edit of yours, again changing the number of votes cast, as well as changing the math so it adds up to more than 100%. It seems you have just kept on making your unsourced edits without ever replying to my last message regarding this same issue. Please provide a source for your new voting numbers, or further edits may be considered disruptive. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adolphus79: As you can see above, I have asked this editor twice to account for an edit, but they have not responded, and have continued editing. This editor was already blocked this month by User:Oshwah and User:Yamla for adding unsourced content. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed, and was trying to find an appropriate warning template as you said this. It seems this editor has a history of doing whatever they wish, without discussing their changes... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found that for the 1976 results for Fayette County, Ohio it added up to 99.9% the other percentages that I reverted for 1976 did add up to 100% TylerKutschbach (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And your source for the changes to numbers of votes cast? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/roundingnumbers.php heres the source for rounding the percentages TylerKutschbach (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't ask what calculator you are using, I asked for your source for the numbers of votes cast... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/ Here’s the source TylerKutschbach (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is just the front page, let's try something specific since you seem to be trying to avoid answering a question directly... I can not find specific data for Darke County, Ohio's 1884 election results on the link you provided, the website claims not to have such data, but you changed the number of votes tallied in the "other" category from 79 to 96... please show me exactly where you found this number... or even for 1892, which you changed from 84 to 116 votes tallied... or even ANY county specific data for Ohio's 1856 data on that website (which claims not to have any available)? I'm starting to think that you are just making it all up as you go... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adolphus79: This was exactly what led me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1055#User:TylerKutschbach a few weeks ago. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, what you're telling me (and after reading the entirety of this talk page and the linked ANI), is that this user has come back from their block and continued to do as they please, without any changes in behavior or any attempt to follow Wikipedia guidelines/policies? That is very concerning... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://maps.ohioelectionresults.com/internal/P/1856 Here’s where I found the 1856 results TylerKutschbach (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, then you need to reference that source whenever you make changes, no one should have to go through this much trouble just to verify your data... you have a history of refusing to add proper citations, despite several warnings... please start doing so, or you might find yourself blocked again... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TylerKutschbach: you did it again with this edit. What is going on here? Haven't you learn from what Adolphus79, Magnolia677 and others have already mentioned? Quite frankly, this is getting old rather fast. -- Dolotta (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dolotta: I did a little Googling, and the results posted by Eau Claire County agree with Tyler's changes. I've added that source to the refs. —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thank you, C.Fred! You are amazing as always. -- Dolotta (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still doing it

You are STILL changing numbers of votes cast, which do not match your sources. Specifically this edit, you changed the number of votes cast in 1900 for the "other" party from 135 to 106, even though the source you provided shows 135 votes cast. You also changed the percentages for that year to different numbers that DO NOT match your own source, let alone the other years that now add up to over 100%. The same is true for the 1896 and 1892 results. It looks like you have continued doing mass changes without any concern for accuracy or Wikipedia guidelines. Please explain... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adolphus79: I would say just make another ANI. – The Grid (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's where this is headed if the disruptive edits continue... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Regarding the image you added to 1884 United States presidential election in South Carolina: what is your source for the county-by-county data? —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1884nationwidecountymapshadedbyvoteshare.svg This map is the county results for 1884 and that’s where I got the South Carolina map. TylerKutschbach (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which creates an issue for you on Commons, not here: you haven't acknowledged that the images you created are derivative works of that map. —C.Fred (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey TylerKutschbach,

I recently uploaded File:Missouri Presidential Election Results 1860.svg to Wikipedia and added it to 1860 United States presidential election in Missouri. While it has the correct county-wide results, the borders of the counties are incorrect (I sourced shapes of the map from File:Missouri Presidential Election Results 1884.svg, which has the modern-day county lines). I've seen that you have uploaded many presidential election maps to Wikipedia, and I was wondering if you could fix the borders for this map to keep them in line with what they were at the time, as I am not very good with fixing SVG shapes. Some sources you can use are File:PresidentialCounty1860Colorbrewer.gif and this website. Thanks! -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:ANI#User:TylerKutschbach. Thank you. 4D4850 (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

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 ~~~~)).  Fences&Windows 23:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your block is for disruptive editing, in the form of persistently adding unsourced content or changing figures without references on hundreds of articles. Attempts to discuss including four ANI threads and several blocks have failed - the user is uncommunicative and does not volunteer sources, and they fail verification when provided. It is indefinite, meaning you will only be unblocked if you successfully appeal. Fences&Windows 23:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((unblock | reason=I want to be unblocked because I am not disruptive and I found these 2020 results on Dave Leip's Atlas and there was a source for those results already in a results table so please unblock me. I don’t want to be blocked indefinitely [[User:TylerKutschbach|TylerKutschbach]] ([[User talk:TylerKutschbach#top|talk]]) 00:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)))

I also want to learn to communicate and learn how to add a source when I find one. TylerKutschbach (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You had many opportunities to communicate. You continued to edit after numerous times of other editors attempting to facilitate communication to verify the edits you made. My best advice for the discussion ahead is that an indefinite block does not mean permanent. – The Grid (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I promise to communicate this time. TylerKutschbach (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I promise that I will answer the questions this time before I can edit again TylerKutschbach (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Grid: I now understand how uncommunicative and not so good sourced I was. I’m so sorry, even when I reverted some of those results you and other users reverted from me, it was all wrong for me to revert. TylerKutschbach (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I now understand how wrong I was using poorly sourced contentTylerKutschbach (talk) 5:38 am, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Accept reason:

We have established communication and you appear to understand the reason for the block and our sourcing standards. Fences&Windows 20:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fences and windows:

Tyler, before I made a decision could you please discuss any two of your recent unsourced edits to explain: 1. Why you made the edit; 2. What edit you would make now; 3. What sourcing you would provide and how you would present it. Fences&Windows 16:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. For the county pages that I added for the results from 1880 to 1908 I saw the results on their election pages on Wikipedia by year and state and I do strongly believe Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 2. An edit I would make now is adding the 2020 results for each county. 3. There is a source for the county results in the table for this website Dave Leip's Atlas and it presents the results for each election year. TylerKutschbach (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a bit of a concern here also, you were blocked in the beginning of January for essentially the exact same reason, but do not seem to have changed your editing patterns at all since returning. Since your last block, you have refused to communicate with other editors, gone out of your way to give very vague answers when you did, and cited sources that did not include the information you were adding/changing. Even during this block, you stated that you "wanted to learn how to communicate and add sources", so I have a few questions also. What would you change about your editing style to avoid future problems? What is the importance of reliable sources and verifiability? And why do you think Dave Leip's Atlas is a reliable source? - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to change my editing style by being careful of what I edit that would make sense. The importance of reliable sources and verifiability is to make sure it is true. Dave Leip's Atlas is a reliable source because it mentions results for each state and each county. TylerKutschbach (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like a specific example of what you would add/change and how you would cite the source, please. Fences&Windows 12:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For Los Angeles County, I added the results from 1852 to 1876 last month and I found a source and cited the source like this ^[1] TylerKutschbach (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the presidential election results from Finney County, Kansas, because the reference doesn't point at the specific data in this article. Please do not restore. Discuss at Talk:Finney County, Kansas. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need to explain where you are getting old election results from uselectionatlas.org website at Talk:Finney County, Kansas (not here). • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That source does have the county results and that’s where I found the 2020 results. There is no reason to remove the election results table, this user HappyElectionsNerd83 added the table and found the results there TylerKutschbach (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hey User:TylerKutschbach - I asked you to "Please do not restore", but you ignored my request. If you are going to play this way, then maybe I need to contact an administrator. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I navigated through several menus at the source cited, and was able to locate only the results for the 2020 general election for Finney County. Historical county data from that website is by purchase only. TylerKutschbach is correct that, "That source does have the county results and that’s where I found the 2020 results", however, TylerKutschbach has been edit warring to restore the historic data as well. This is fine, and editors are certainly able to restore sourced data that another editor removes. Regarding this, TylerKutschbach responded at Talk:Finney County, Kansas#Bad Reference for Presidential Election Results saying: "That reference does have the results but if you want to see the results prior to 2000 you’ll have to have an account for that website." The original historic data was added here in 2017 by User:HappyElectionsNerd83, using the exact same source. Perhaps HappyElectionsNerd83 had an account with "uselectionatlas.org" and paid for all the data, or the data on that website was free at the time? TylerKutschbach could say they were simply restoring sourced data? My concern is that the source was challenged, and for this reason, the edit should not have been restored. As well, TylerKutschbach actually contacted HappyElectionsNerd83 to inquire about where they found the historic election results. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:

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.

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.
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.
I can see that you and IP User:2600:1009:B14F:7EA5:99E0:87AC:A203:18F2 are in an edit war. Please try and assume good faith and do not revert every single edit they make. It appears that they are making genuine edits, or at least have the intention in doing so. Can you please reach out to them on their talk page? Also please read WP:NEIPIAV! Just because the user is an IP user, does not mean their edits are disruptive! From what it looks like to me, you are reverting every single one of their edits without reaching out to them at all. Please try to talk to them! Thanks!
PerpetuityGrat (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I talked to the user and told it to stop being involved with an edit war with me. TylerKutschbach (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TylerKutschbach: it looks like you just told them to stop without trying to understand their edits. Their edits looked constructive and in good faith to me. I even checked one of the county election results myself. What is the issue here? PerpetuityGrat (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue is some county pages don’t have the 2020 results or they have the results but just needed to be updated and Dave Leip’s Atlas is where I saw the 2020 results. TylerKutschbach (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TylerKutschbach: ok thanks for the clarification. Those data appear legitimate from that source. There may be some absentee ballots or something that IP user is trying to incorporate, since the edits they are making are miniscule. Try be to be diplomatic with your warnings if you can! Looks like they haven't responded to you on their talk page yet, but if they do try to find out where they are getting their data.

Cheers, PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With this edit at Finney County, Kansas, you added presidential election results back to 1888. To support your edit, you provided this source. I am unable to locate the presidential election results back to 1888 at the source provided. Could you please list the exact steps to take to find those results at the source cited? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To find the results at the cite you’ll need an account for the website because the county data is available to site members. TylerKutschbach (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There isn't a link for county results for 1888. Could you please state exactly where it states that the 1888 results for Finney County, Kansas are available to paid members? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1888&fips=20&f=0&off=0&elect=0%5D%5Bimg%5Duselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/img.php?year=1888&off=0&elect=0&fips=20&evt=&type=map&st=KS%5B/img%5D%5B/url%5D here’s a link for Kansas in 1888 and the only way to see the results is by having an account for each county TylerKutschbach (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at San Mateo County, California, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hanover Research. If you engage in further disruptive editing, you will be subjected to a CheckUser investigation and permanently blocked. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just reverting the presidential results back. All county pages have the results for each election and there’s no reason to remove them. TylerKutschbach (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you really weren't aware of the Hanover Research situation, you are now. So please do not inadvertently contribute to such long-term abuse of WP unless you like getting permanently blocked. And if you are aware of that situation and you reinserted that contested content anyway (or even worse, you are actively involved in inserting such material into WP), you're just asking to get blocked. Just don't do it. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coolcaesar, the Hanover Research disruption comes from the Washington, D.C. area, because Hanover Research is based in Arlington. At the TylerKutschbach sockpuppet case page, a couple of Ohio IPs were listed, showing that TylerKutschbach is not the Hanover Research person. Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coolcaesar, the presidential election result table had been in San Mateo County, California's article since 2005, and had not been added by an editor or IP that has been linked to Hanover Research. It has been edited and added to by numerous editors since that time. Restoring that table was not vandalism.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 2020 United States presidential election in Pennsylvania. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

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 ~~~~)).  Fences&Windows 08:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have had plenty of warning and explanation of how to source. Instead, you continue to make unsourced changes and to edit war. I've indef blocked you again. Fences&Windows 08:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just adding the 2020 results from every county page because they were missing the 2020 results. There was also already a source to where the results are found.TylerKutschbach (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC) @Fences and windows:Reply[reply]

​You were changing the results without actually citing the source. Just putting "Dave's Atlas" in the edit summary is not citing a source. This has been explained to you ad nauseam. After many warnings and several blocks, I get the sense that you are simply not capable of understanding the instructions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tartan357: I do understand the instructions. I know how to cite a source, please give me a second chance. TylerKutschbach (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tartan357: also you gave me a warning about me if I reverted the Pennsylvania 2020 election page again I would be blocked but I didn’t do it again after the first revert. I would’ve never gotten blocked if I didn’t do that again. TylerKutschbach (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not the one who blocked you. But I would like to note that you'd already been blocked twice previously for this very issue, so you've already had a second and a third chance. If unblocked, this would be your fourth chance. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that I forgot to cite the source for where I found the results. TylerKutschbach (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You say that you understand, but your history indicates that you've said that before and still show that you don't understand. I'm not sure if you lack the skills needed to participate here, or you simply don't care, but I agree that a topic ban would not modify your behavior. A good start towards getting unblocked would be to demonstrate proper sourcing on this page, perhaps with also agreeing to only submit edit requests regarding adding sources for a period of time- but in any event, I suggest that you review WP:REFB and spend much time becoming familiar with it before making another request, I am declining this one. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[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.

I'm not going to review this request myself, as I've blocked, unblocked, and then blocked you again. I think another admin should review with fresh eyes; there are several who patrol unblock requests. Fences&Windows 16:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vanjagenije: can you unblock me please. I made a clear reason why I was blocked and I was wrong to not source.TylerKutschbach (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last month, you were blocked for this exact same reason. To get unblocked, you claimed you had learned how and why it was important to properly cite your edits (see User talk:TylerKutschbach#February 2021 above), but it seems that you have not changed your attitude towards editing at all. You say you want unblocked again now because you understand you were wrong not to source, but that is what you clamed a month ago. I am starting to believe you either do not understand the guidelines and policies here, or simply do not care. To be quite frank about it, I think we have played this game with you long enough. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. If an unblock is considered I would suggest a topic ban. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A topic ban is not appropriate, as it would not change the user's editing patterns. The main concern here is a habitual refusal to follow Wikipedia's referencing protocols, not their editing of a specific topic. - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adolphus79: I really do understand the guidelines and policies and do know how to source. There was already a source in the table results but maybe it needed to be updated or something. TylerKutschbach (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Magnolia677: what kind of topic ban? TylerKutschbach (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adolphus79: what topic ban would you suggest for me TylerKutschbach (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. We cannot just take your word for it; please demonstrate your knowledge. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@331dot: here’s an example of a cited source ^[1] TylerKutschbach (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone else will review your request. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tdl1060: can you unblock me. I added an unblock request. TylerKutschbach (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop asking random uninvolved admins to unblock you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not an admin, and thus do not have the authority to unblock anyone.--Tdl1060 (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adolphus79: I was just tagging them to get the attention of my unblock request. I’ve been waiting to be unblocked since I’ve got blocked again this week. TylerKutschbach (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TylerKutschbach, you don't need to (and shouldn't) do that. There are admins that monitor open unblock requests. A little patience would do you well. Opening multiple unblock requests at the same time and canvassing admins will only hurt your chances of being unblocked. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How on earth is a link to "Dave's Atlas" a demonstration of your ability to properly source all the stuff you keep adding to Wikipedia? Let me pick just one of the thousands of edits you have made using "Dave's Atlas". See this edit at Coweta County, Georgia, which you made on January 2, 2021. Yet the source cited says "Retrieved March 19, 2018". Moreover, the source does not show any of the historic data you added. You have been questioned over and over about the historic election data you have obtained from "Dave's Atlas", and you have responded in various ways, most recently by saying the historic data is available only to members who subscribe to Dave's Atlas. How about finding a government or state-published source which absolutely supports all the data you keep adding, is available for all to see, and will withstand any scrutiny? "Dave's Atlas" is what got you in to all this trouble in the first place. Seriously, I would strongly recommend a topic ban from all demographic and election-related data until you can demonstrate an ability to properly source your edits. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Magnolia677: Dave Leip’s Atlas is a reliable source. I mentioned to you before, just click any state you want to look at on the site and if you click on a county they’ll show you the 2020 results TylerKutschbach (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But your cites are not helpful. It's like citing Wikipedia or Britannica without saying which article you're citing; and verifying your information at that cite needs expensive access to the real product of that website, the datasets. I'd be inclined to exclude it as a source for that very reason; all the free stuff is marketing for the pay stuff. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jpgordon: FYI, per WP:PAYWALL, we don't exclude sources on that basis. Many (increasingly most) high quality sources are behind paywalls to varying degrees.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I know that. But this isn't just behind a paywall; the purpose of this site is to sell datasets. Anyway, that's not the main problem here at all. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jpgordon: would a different page on Dave Leip’s work for citing a better source to show the results like the page showing the county results? TylerKutschbach (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. A link directly to the historic (not current) county results might solve that problem. Give us an example of such a link right here so we can evaluate it. I mean, this is good data, but your presentation of it is the main problem. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

^[2] Here’s an example it’s for Richmond County, New York also known as Staten Island. TylerKutschbach (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I meant a link to the Leip website. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tdl1060: so that’s probably why me and some other Wikipedia users were having issues getting access to see the results from elections prior to 2000 TylerKutschbach (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jpgordon: I also did asked this Wikipedia user HappyElectionsNerd83 where the user found the results because the user is the one who did add the results table for the historical results and the user has not responded back to me. TylerKutschbach (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please provide a citation directly to the source within the Leip website for a piece of data that comes from the for-sale data packages so that users, should they wish, can pay the necessary fee to access the data so they can verify your edits. Don't bother pinging me until you can do so. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jpgordon: here’s the for-sale page for the website ^[3] TylerKutschbach (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's exactly as useful as the link to the main page of the website, which is to say, not enough. But maybe someone else will be able to help you here; I'm getting nowhere. Someone else will come along and take up your unblock request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jpgordon: ok. Hopefully the next person who sees my request will accept it. TylerKutschbach (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Please provide a specific example of an edit you would make and the source(s) you would cite if you were unblocked. —C.Fred (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@C.Fred: here’s an example for adding the 2020 results for Thurston County, Nebraska which I did add before but it was removed and here’s a source for the county results for 2020. ^[4] TylerKutschbach (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You did NOT cite that source when you made the edit... Please do not claim that you added a source, when we can all easily see you did not... This is exactly what everyone is upset about, we know that you know how to cite a source, but you habitually refuse to do so... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adolphus79, I agree, this seems disingenuous. This editor was previously unblocked after demonstrating their ability to create a citation, and then proceeded to make hundreds of unsourced edits. Their false insistence here that this edit was sourced properly and was just reverted for no reason is WP:GASLIGHTING and makes me think they will continue this behavior if unblocked. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tartan357: I promise to add the source this time, and what I meant to say is I added the results on that page but not the source I provided here. I’m trying to prove that those are the accurate results. TylerKutschbach (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue is NOT whether those are the accurate results. Nobody is disputing that. The issue is you refusing to cite a source when adding them, even though you clearly know better. We've played this game with you long enough. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tartan357: I swear that I will cite sources this time. I don’t want anymore trouble. TylerKutschbach (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[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).

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

---

Request reason:

I want to be unblocked because I promise to source for real this time.

Decline reason:

I'm declining this, as there isn't any reason to think that the most recent exhortions by you to follow sourcing obligations will be met when your last set of promises were not. While the standard offer will apply (and to clarify, I definitely don't count your user talk page edits as resetting the six months. It is 6 months from when you were indeffed, and will generally only reset on socking or unsuccessful appeals. I would like to stress that beneficial contributions on other projects, such as simple wikipedia, could be particularly advantegeous here since you'll need to show what has changed in the interim. Obviously a block there would likely kill off any chance of appealing here. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[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.

Tyler, I can't speak for Wikipedia's admin corp, but this looks to be a classic WP:STICK situation. You were indefinitely blocked over two weeks ago now. If an admin was inclined to unblock you, it is probably safe to say that you would have been unblocked by now. It may be best at this time to come back in October and see if an administrator is willing to entertain a standard offer. -- Dolotta (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dolotta: I’ve been waiting for to be unblocked for this long. I’ve showed some users some examples of citing a source and when I got the final warning of editing/reverting a page, the user asked another user to block me when I didn’t revert again after I got the final warning. TylerKutschbach (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're still arguing that what you did did not warrant a block, then you haven't learned anything and should not be unblocked. You are not guaranteed an unblock. Dolotta is right, your best bet right now is the standard offer. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tartan357: so I have to wait until October 1st to do the special offer? TylerKutschbach (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's six months, so you could take advantage of the offer on September 30th. The way it works is you wait until then without engaging in sockpuppetry, and then ask one of us to start a discussion at WP:AN about whether to unblock you. When the time comes, I'm willing to be that person. Ping me here on September 30th and I'll start a discussion about giving you the standard offer, if you've behaved well over the course of the six months. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would also help your case to make constructive contributions to other WMF projects during the six months, which you could then point to when seeking the offer. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The standard offer dictates six months from your last edit -- and you have edited your talk page 32 times since you were blocked on March 30. Go outside and enjoy the spring temperatures (or fall if you are a New Zelander) and we might see you in a few months. Honestly, you are likely closer to having your talk page access removed than getting unblocked. Dolotta (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Procedural break (6(ish) months later)

@Tartan357: I’ve now waited 6 months TylerKutschbach (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[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).

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

---

Request reason:

I’ve now waited 6 months to have the standard offer. TylerKutschbach (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

I think your history here, and your history on Commons, indicate it would not benefit Wikipedia to unblock you a month after drawing an one year ban for similar behavior on Commons. WP:SO is not satisfied. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[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.

The last message on here is Dolotta explaining it was from your last edit, not from the date of the block. You last edited April 15th, that is not 6 months. Also, what do you have to say about the fact that you claimed to learn how to properly source content to get unblocked last time, and then immediately continued your disruptive editing? Why should we provide you a fourth(!) chance to prove us fools? And/or would you be willing to accept a topic ban as suggested above? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adolphus79: Tartan357 told me that I’d wait until September 30. I learned to source/cite a website on Citation Machine. I want a fourth chance because I was proving the results for those counties are accurate and I was helping my Wikipedia friend John M Wolfson templatizing the county election results tables for the way he wants them to be. TylerKutschbach (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No evidence of sockpuppetry (good!). However, I'm leaving the request for someone else to address. In my opinion, it doesn't come close to following WP:SO, but maybe the user thinks this is the start of the process. --Yamla (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the ping, Adolphus79. I don't believe TylerKutschbach should be unblocked at this time. Tyler has been active over at commons since his block here in late March and is now currently serving a one year block there as well (c:Special:Contributions/TylerKutschbach). Also, considering the close spacing of their previous blocks here, I am unsure whether they will be able to be a sucessful member of the community. -- Dolotta (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not know about that! Not that my opinion counts for much in this matter, but the block on Commons cements it for me. I'm not sure if this user is being purposely WP:TENDENTIOUS or simply does not care, but I do not feel they can be trusted to continue editing at this time. Clearly fails WP:SO... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[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).

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

---

Request reason:

I’ve waited 6 months without sockpuppetry and want a fourth chance. TylerKutschbach (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

Nothing you have said gives me any thought that you will be a productive editor if unblocked. Keeping you blocked is the best thing for Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[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.

Tyler, you were given what I believe to be a rather definitive no from Jpgordon the other day. I don't think anything has happened in the interim to change anything. -- Dolotta (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dolotta: all I want to do is make things right for real this time and even help John M Wolfson with his request on the Reward Board. TylerKutschbach (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you made that same promise last time, but refused to follow through... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adolphus79: I promise to follow through this time. TylerKutschbach (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm pretty sure the block on Commons really prevents that. Your rope is rather thin here. – The Grid (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Grid: is the rope thing giving blocked users one last chance as I read in the article of the rope. TylerKutschbach (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid not, Tyler. Maybe sometime in the future, provided you're in good standing. You will be on very thin ice where you can not make any mistakes that have been identified throughout this talk page. Take some time to think clearly about this and understand the standard offer might be more towards 1 year but that is for any admin to decide. Wish you luck on the journeys ahead. – The Grid (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviewing admin (courtesy ping to Jpgordon): Please consider talk page access removal. Looking at his commons talk page, it looks like multiple unblock requests have been made there and I suspect that it might happen here as well. -- Dolotta (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, really, enough is enough. If someone feels strongly enough about this to unblock, feel free. Talk page access removed. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

he hasn't learned his lesson he just will keep vandalizing. He has reemerged and keeps making account after account on wiki commons so many of them we could barely keep up. here are just a few on my page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Putitonamap98#note_to_myself

as you can see he targets the pennsylvania, ohio, wisconsin, florida, west virginia and georgia maps and keeps reverting the improvments that i and other editors have worked hard on.

and now he has gone a step further and started reverting on en wiki everytime i change the maps to the standard shape files

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Op233op2e

i highly recommend we add protection locks to these pages. at the very least this would slow down the vandalism

keep a close eye on this one Putitonamap98 (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This username has been blocked since October, there is no point complaining on this talk page... create a report at WP:SPI or WP:AN/I... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TylerKutschbach. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

---

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. You may instead email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org with your username and appeal.

---

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.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]