User talk:2601:140:8B00:1300:4810:2ECC:F080:DF41

August 2018
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Walnut Creek, California. ''You've been adding large chunks of unreferenced content, all beginning with the exact same wording to numerous California settlement articles. It's strange that the only ones you are adding to are ones where you can make the unsourced claim "Republican stronghold". That in itself is a pretty clear indication you are not here to improve the encyclopedia, but rather to push your political agenda. Stop please.'' John from Idegon (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I am just adding data that I have extracted directly from the California Secretary of State's website of Statements of Votes in presidential elections since 1964. I am simply adding some verbal context to the data, saying that from 1968 to 1988, the city had a Republican trend, but since then has experienced a Democratic trend. I apologize if my initial wording sounded politically charged, but I assure you, I have no intentions and are merely contributing information to the page so that those who are interested in the voting patterns of Walnut Creek and other Bay Area cities can find it here.
 * Bullshit. You'd be adding the data to the articles in alphabetical order if that were the case. I'll be reverting all your additions, as even the few you've added a source to have unsourced content. It's primary source data and subject to consensus anyway. You do not have that. John from Idegon (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

If you read all of the content I have added, I have been going from city to city in each county alphabetically, adding the data, and context as well. This includes all cities, and offering the clear non-partisan analysis of the voting trends in each city. There is no need for that language here.


 * You need to cite published political analysis if you want to share political analysis with the reader. Interpreting raw stats is not what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do, per WP:No original research. And the charts by themselves are deprecated at WP:NOTSTATS, so that makes your contributions go against the guidelines and policies. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

So can we at least leave the data then and I can delete my analysis? The data speaks for itself, even without offering any analysis or context.
 * , I assume you noticed the IP geolocates to the Washington DC area? John from Idegon (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The data are not appropriate, per WP:NOTSTATS. Also, you are evading a block placed on, so now you are violating WP:MULTIPLE. And you're edit warring over this kind of content which has been repeated removed by other editors, telling you clearly that you are not working with full consensus of the community. Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is the data not appropriate? There is similar data if you view the pages of the state of California and counties within the state of California (which also include no cited analysis, I might add). It was my eventual goal to add voting history in presidential elections for every incorporated city in California. I think this would be of great benefit to Wikipedia users, many of which, may want to know this information, including me. The reason I took up this task was because I myself was curious to know this information and couldn't find it. I am not partisan in the slightest. As you can see in every city I have edited, I have used language like "Democratic stronghold" and "Republican stronghold" or "Democratic trend" or "Republican leaning" when it applies.

Also, I have only made edits on two IP addresses, one at my home and one at a cafe.

For example, take a look at my first addition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda,_California#Politics This one you left completely as is. Same with Albany, Berkeley, and other cities. Yet, I simply added the data and made a brief, non-partisan analysis of said data.


 * Where in the statistical website that you claim your data comes from but are not citing does it say Democratic stronghold or Republican stronghold? And generally if someone is accused of wrongdoing, such as block evasion, if it's false, they deny it. Stop adding this. If your additions are being reverted, it's clear you do not have consensus for them. You've been provided reasons, but frankly, it isn't on the people reverting you to explain why the content isn't acceptable. Your the one wanting it. Make an argument based in reliable sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines as to why it should be here. No one gives a damn about your opinion (or mine). John from Idegon (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, from now on, I will add only the data and cite it, directly from the source. I will not add any analysis or context. And I was not evading a block; I have worked from those two IP addresses for a while, long before this dispute.
 * And if you do, a block will likely result. It's clear from this conversation that at least two editors object to your addition of this content on multiple grounds, at least one of which precludes you adding any of it. That would mean you do not have consensus to do that, and it means you clearly know you don't. I'd suggest going to WT:California and attempt to establish a consensus. John from Idegon (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

My new edit clearly follows Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As you can see, I cited everey single year directly from the California Secretary of State's website, which is an official government page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walnut_Creek,_California#Politics
 * But you are evading a block. You performed this edit which added "Republican stronghold", and then that IP address was blocked for disruption. Blocking policy says the block is intended to stop a person from editing not just to stop an IP address or registered account. If you find a way to edit after one IP is blocked, if you evade your block, then all of your work can be reverted on sight by others without further consideration. Binksternet (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The block expired earlier today, as evidenced by me having the ability to now edit. And I am doing so in total respect for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that you've outlined.

And let me ask, if I may, since you accused me of having a bias earlier: why do so many other cities that I've added similar content to remain as is without any of my additions being removed? Most of these I notice tend to have more Democratic voting patterns. I hope there isn't a bias in your selective deleting. I am trying to add data for every city, regardless of politics.

For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany,_California#Politics, along with almost every other city in Alameda County.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Concord, California. John from Idegon (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You see, I just added the data back WITH citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danville,_California#Politics

There must be an ulterior reason why you're so intent to not let me publish this information, even though I have clearly followed Wikipedia guidelines by adding citations. What is it about this political data that you don't feel is appropriate?


 * Your citation does not say one thing about being anyone's "stronghold". You've also been told numerous times your edits were not appropriate for other reasons besides WP:V. You've made no effort to establish a consensus, which you have also been informed you need. John from Idegon (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Further, my sole motivation is to protect the encyclopedia. You are not listening and you are edit warring, which is disruptive. You've been given ample opportunity to stop and form a consensus, but you keep on re-adding your inappropriate content. You've earned the consequences. John from Idegon (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for block evasion. 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:. -- Luk  talk 08:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.