User talk:Blueskyboris

October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Troll (Internet) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Netalarm  talk  03:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your post
Could you explain what you meant on your post at List of Internet forums? Which page should be listed? Netalarm  talk  04:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Joe Lieberman. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. CardinalDan (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Joe Lieberman. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. CardinalDan (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Joe Lieberman. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. CardinalDan (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite willing to use Wikipedia Arbitration on this one. It is a FACT that Lieberman left the CLF and I did not add links to the article willy-nilly.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --John (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I have now blocked you for the edit war, you will have to talk about it here on your talk page. It will unblock in 24 hours. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay fine.

1. That Lieberman left the CFL is a fact. 2. The link I provided was not a random list link.

PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF OF YOUR COMPETENCE HERE IS THIS THREAD> Remember, I will be taking this to arbitration, which means what you write here will used in that arbitration.

Please present your reasoning here.

I am not affiliated with the CFL. That Lieberman left the CFL is a fact that caused a controversy. Therefore, it should be added to the controversy section.


 * Normally arbitration is not required, but talking on the talk page is the way to go for a content dispute like this. If you promise to not keep adding your change to the article, but add your argument to the talk page or talk to those who were removing your change I can unblock you.  Do you wish to proceed in this way? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I wish to proceed with arbitration unless you outline A LOGICAL ARGUMENT AS TO WHY YOU ARE REJECTING MY CONTRIBUTION. We can start at the beginning: Why is Lieberman leaving the CFL not a fact?

About sources, citations, discussion
Hello--

Since things were pretty tense last evening and the proverbial reset button has been pressed so you and everyone else involved in the Joe Lieberman article can keep moving ahead, I wanted to let you know in detail what some of the troubles were they resulted in your edits being reverted. No one is saying you any harmful intentions-- blocks at Wikipedia are used to try to prevent future troubles and things are not done to punish the past; if you'd like to know more specifically about your block, you might want to read WP:3RR, since I don't know if caught that link amongst the others above. If you read this through and can demonstrate the wider side of your contributions (I see you are a long-time Wikipedia user), an administrator could review your block and it could go a long way toward any possible troubles in the future and you could also request an un-block.

One of the general principles of Wikipedia is not to find truth, but to find consensus with as much information that is reasonably presented. You probably know about the policies and guidelines for determining notability, using reliable sources and the like, but in this article a few other things came into play that aren't know of as widely and some of the specific points of editing also appeared. The first issue, from what I could see, was the reliability of an informal blog of a political party being considered a reliable source. Blogs are by in large not considered, but I can see why you would want to use it as a source. From our point of view on the outside, we don't see just a blog as an "official" website; Things with domains .org are the standard for most political parties in the US. There is also no general information about the party there or its general beliefs, which again is something we might hope to see. A second issue was the text itself; the quotation you offered does not specifically say that Sen. Lieberman had left. An extended interpretation of that might bring you to that conclusion, but since it's not shown in words it's not something to be used in an article. Wikipedia merely provides readers with the ability to form their own opinions and conclusions so something more specific would have to be put in. Any other reverts past that seemed to have been because those first problems had still not been addressed. I would also encourage you to use the article talk page before adding such vital information. If you still have any large issues, there is higher levels of dispute resolution, but from both experience and logic I can tell you that going to Arbitration is a very lengthy process and it can be hard to even have your case heard. I'm sure things will end up fine and that in another day or two those who edited the page will have forgotten it every happened. Best wishes, ♪ daTheisen(talk) 11:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, “Anyone who has been paying attention at all should know the Connecticut for Lieberman Party is no longer a pro Lieberman party,” he said.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/17/connecticut-for-lieberman-not-so-fast/

It is not the fault of the fact that the CFL has such a shitty website. But, there it is! It IS its website! I therefore think the denial of my edits is RIDICULOUS. It is poor, not thought out reasoning which basically amounts to "there are no exceptions to the rule because I don't really want to present an argument".


 * If you had that, why not bring it up sooner?! It would go a long way on how to put it into part of the article as more than a 1-line statement. Persons opposing would have a larger burgeon to say a change was not acceptable, at least. I'll warn you ahead of time that that article is a blog as well, but it at least mentions his leaving, instead of the first blog which does not say it. Looking at it further, Wikipedia articles state that Lieberman never was officially a member of this party and remained listed as "Independent Democrat" in the whole process. It's just important to check all available sources. As for my past argument... Wikipedia's guidelines are pretty clear. I'd object to anyone using a source like that in a WP:BLP article without at least a discussion ahead of time on the article talk page or an overwhelming number of coursed. I ask this in return-- if the 1 candidate ever of the CFL party abandoned them, why wasn't it major media? Why is there still a donation solicitation on their "web page"? That's also something that could be a sign of a fake or even a hoax entirely. Not saying that it is, but there are a lot of hoax-type political websites. This was apparently not just an opinion I held, as several other editors that were previously 100% unrelated to that article reverted as well. In the end, there is always some room for interpretation of guidelines, but that's what article talk pages are for. Users can come in and present new information, others can digest, and see if there is at least some consensus for it; In this case consensus was clearly completely against you... people might point to WP:OWN as a reason for your edits and I hope you can explain in more detail if you feel a need to.
 * If you have other concerns about faulty reasoning and "no exceptions... because I don't really want to present an argument", you should discuss on the article talk page. That's what it's there for. I'm not your enemy-- I just don't want to see more blocks in the future over resolvable matter. Until true media coverage can be found and the contradictions with other sources stating otherwise explained, it will be extremely hard to change consensus and your information will be questioned. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles state that Lieberman never was officially a member of this party and remained listed as "Independent Democrat" in the whole process."

That is a horrible counter-argument. The sidebar of the wiki lists Lieberman as being part of the CFL from 2006 to present. If your argument makes sense, then you should take it down. Are we going to take it down?

Also, I don't see how you could ever differentiate between a hoax blog and a hoax website. There are cheap and expensive hoaxes.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)