User talk:TheLibertyLover

TheLibertyLover, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi TheLibertyLover! 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 Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

3RR Violation

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandal warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been or will be undone. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Im not committing vandalism. Your putting up old and incorrect information. I will continue as much as I can to fix your false information

Back off -- Use Talkpage

Both you and Saturn should stop. Use the article talk page to discuss the proposed edits. If you can't reach an agreement, then post a request to WP:3O. – S. Rich (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I made correct factual edits with citations. he just came on and claimed I did vandalism when is putting up fake candidates and false election results. (The liberty lover)

I've taken a step back and allowed for myself to cool down. In retrospect, I overreacted to your edits and I apologize for that. The problem is that unreferenced straw polls are being claimed as primaries. There is a big difference between straw polls and primaries. Also, this page is not a list of Libertarian presidential candidates. It is a list of primary results. You removed candidates who attained ballot access in states. These candidates were referenced. Whether they are recognized by the national party is irrelevant. I hope we can come to an agreement on this matter.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay fair enough. Im new to wikipedia as I know now not to get in an edit war. If you are to re add these candidates and there vote totals please have citations. For the side template maybe have straw poll victories, popular vote, percentage and states won. Can we agree though Uncommitted is not a candidate. (The Liberty Lover)

Yes, of course uncommitted is not a candidate, but it was the ballot option that a plurality of the people of Missouri selected and so it won the state. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay but “Uncommitted” is not a single candidate but rather an amalgamation of several candidates. That vote would be split between Gary Johnson and John McAfee if either had been on the ballot. Therefore, the candidate that truly came in first place in Missouri is Austin Petersen. (The Liberty Lover)

I think that's reading too much into it. You could also say that there's a strong "Nobody for President" movement within the LP. We can't really project a motive upon the voters. We can only look to the results themselves. Uncommitted won the primary because it received the most votes. In 2012, James Ogle actually won the Missouri primary because he received more votes than uncommitted. If he did not, uncommitted would be considered the winner. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thats not reading to much into at all. Thats the facts. (theLibertylover)

Why do you keep changing the template? The page is for primaries, not straw polls. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree... The page is for primaries. I don't believe convention straw polls should be included. Either way, you never attached any sources to verify the results of such straw polls so please leave it as-is until we can come to a conclusion. Also, sign comments you make on talk pages by ending your comment with ~~~~. Then it will automatically sign with your username and date. --Hamez0 (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay first off I did not change the template. I reverted your changes. One the administrators included Straw Polls. So I did not come up with that therefor I myself do not need to attach any sources. TheLibertyLover (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The person that added straw poll results is not an administrator. He doesn't have the rights to add them either. It doesn't matter who added them; there needs to be official sources for those results even if they should be there, which it has not been determined if they should be included with primaries. --Hamez0 (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is your source right here: https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-libertarian-party-nomination/heres-whos-winning-libertarian-party-primary-far/ TheLibertyLover (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

What they use in that article came from the Wikipedia page. It's not a valid source because it would be essentially citing itself. I was more looking along the lines of official sources to show the official results of such polls, in which that article still does not address. How do we know that this map is accurate? There is no links to any official results to verify that the results the map shows is accurate. --Hamez0 (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay so a trusted website is not a source now. Okay where is your source? TheLibertyLover (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Source for what? The states originally in the template? In the Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 page, citation number 19, 20, and 22. They are links to OFFICIAL state results. There are no such links present in that article for the straw polls you want to include in the map. --Hamez0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

There where by the guy who originally updated until you decided to undo everyone's work and vandalize the entire page. TheLibertyLover (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I am viewing the history of both the LP Primary page and the page for the template. There were no such sources. All there was is in the edit history "(Updated to include state preference votes held in other states, including those held by state LPs (as was MN previously shown)." and that does not link to any official results, nor addresses why the preference straw polls should be included on the page for primary elections. --Hamez0 (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Whatever im done arguing with you, im sure people will continue to change it and your will continue to undo it. TheLibertyLover (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It'll be undone for sure, so long as there continues to be no sources for viewers to verify the content. All content on Wikipedia that isn't generally common knowledge on the subject, especially statistical data such as these primaries, needs to have a credible source so users that browse the page know that it is accurate. (WP:VERIFY) What needs to be done first is that when the LP Primary page gets unlocked, add the straw poll results in a new section in that article, making sure that there are links to official sources that hold the exact data for the polls. THEN we can create a discussion for debating whether or not we should include those results in this map template. I also suggest checking out WP:Etiquette and WP:NPOV as well to learn how things are commonly done in Wikipedia. --Hamez0 (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright I can 100% agree with that! TheLibertyLover (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Well this is disappointing. I thought we had come to a consensus that we would wait until straw polls were mentioned in the article, backed up by reputable sources inside the article, and had a discussion for consensus before changing the map. Currently as it stands there is no sources to back up what you reverted the map template to. Lack of official sources for the results and lack of consensus is why the straw poll results were removed from the map. It should not continue to display straw poll results instead of primary election results. Now, when you just recently undid the article again, you said something along the lines of "stop restoring fake information." Please explain what is fake about keeping only the primary election results that are backed up with sources in the LP primaries article. --Hamez0 (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)