User talk:Tippecanoe&TylerToo

December 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Cloth face mask have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Cloth face mask was changed by Tippecanoe&TylerToo (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.871713 on 2021-12-07T22:00:44+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Electoral fraud. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Acroterion (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tippecanoe&TylerToo, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Tippecanoe&TylerToo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

DS alert: American politics

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.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While the above alert does not entail that there's anything wrong with your edits, I do want to note that your use of misleading edit summaries at Electoral fraud and Cloth face mask, as well as the edit warring at the latter, are problems. If you continue this pattern of editing, you are likely to lose your editing privileges. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice

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 COVID-19, broadly construed. 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.

clpo13_(talk) 20:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obama

Stop with the "factual; error correction." The description is a long-established consensus, both on Wikipedia and in general media and biographical coverage. Your conduct is disruptive, and in reviewing your contributions, this has been a pattern. Acroterion (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock puppet

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).

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

Request reason:

I am afraid that whoever blocked me for sock puppetry is in error. This is the first and only Wikipedia account I have ever had. Please review your decision as it is erroneous. ~~Tippecanoe&TylerToo~~

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[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.

There is no way I can be a sock puppet

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).

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

Request reason:

There is no way that I was verified as a “abuser of multiple accounts.” The charge of sock puppetry is impossible because I have only ever had this one account. Please review this again, because these charges are false. I am not a sock puppet. ~~Tippecanoe&TylerToo~~

Decline reason:

A username like yours is not the best one to have if you're trying to convince us you're only one person with one account.

Seriously, I am not a checkuser so I don't have access to the data, but it is perhaps because I don't that I may be freer to get through to you: It takes a lot more than just saying "NO I'M NOT! NO I'M NOT!" repeatedly to convince us that you're not a sockpuppet. I mean, look at it from our perspective ... if we just took everyone who said that at their word, which would be all we could do without checkuser, we might as well not have a sockpuppetry policy at all. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The username is not evidence of sock puppetry. If I was a sock puppet, why would I keep appealing the decision? I would just create another account if I was really a sock puppet. Why would I go through all the trouble? If I have been verified as a sock puppet, where is the evidence? Why was I verified as such? There is no way that I could have really been verified as a sock puppet because the fact is I am not. I urge somebody to actually look into this, because these charges are trumped up and false. And how come one administrator can accuse somebody and block their account? In traditional Justice settings, it takes more than just one person to convict people. ~~Tippecanoe&TylerToo~~

Decline reason:

"Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts." I'm removing talkpage access. Acroterion (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[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.