User talk:Prussian Empire 1914

Libertarian party edit
Hello, I'm Stabila711. Your recent edit to the page United_States_presidential_election,_2016 appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. (Extra information: source cited does not indicate party has complete ballot access yet).

Prussian Empire 1914, your inclusion of complete ballot access for the libertarian party in the 2016 election is not supported by your citation. Even with the most current report from the ballot-access website, the libertarian party is only on 31 states' ballots (see 2016 Petitioning For President section of report). They are not yet on Alabama, Connecticut, D.C., Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington. Since they are not on the ballot in every state + D.C., they do not have the fully 538 electoral votes. Since your citation does not support your claim your edit has been reverted. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

related discussion
(( moved this over here, from User:Stabila711's talkpage ))
 * Honestly, I am very sorry for acting so rudely about all that, I just tend to fell that much of our information is controlled it happens on Wikipedia too, that's why I am usually so touchy with kinds of things. They information you gave me is very helpful for citing sources & just for watching ballot access, thank you & sorry again.


 * P.S. Do you have any other sites similar to the ones you reported? —Prussian Empire 1914 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi again User:Prussian Empire 1914 -- well, yes it is true you were a bit short, talking to Stabila711, and wikipedians are supposed to be WP:NICE to each other. "It ain't just a good idea, it's the wiki-law!"  ;-)     Makes all our lives more pleasant.  Everybody can have a bad hair day, so don't stress about it; but I recommend this, always try and take a deep breath -- then click preview and read your comment aloud -- before you click save.  It's silly, but it does tend to help, and pretty soon you'll get the hang of remembering-without-fail that everybody here is human, and that writing good content for one of the top-ten-websites in the universe (and the numero uno encyclopedia) is pretty difficult work -- no need to make it more stressful by arguing and bickering, eh?  So yeah, try not to be touchy with other wikipedians, remember we're all trying to work together here.


 * As for the larger point, that information is controlled (especially in politics/politicians and economics/corporations and other powerful real-world entities), all I can say is, that cannot be helped. Wikipedia is not a silver bullet here.  Winners still write the history books, as it were, and wikipedia is (mostly -- see below) not an exception.  Wikipedia is a pretty good website, but it cannot change the universe instantaneously!  What it can do, is neutrally report the factual info, as reflected in the WP:SOURCES.  It is natural to be concerned about wikipedia having the truth in her pages, see WP:THETRUTH, which is a bit satirical but gets the point across.  For my own part, after seeing the wiki-mechanisms in operation over a long period, I'm pretty convinced the pillar two of the WP:5 is actually the *correct* way to achieve that, in the long run.  Weirdly, wikipedia is not about the truth; wikipedians aren't supposed to even *TRY* to write the truth!  Counterintuitively, the best way to make sure the truth is in wikipedia, is to concentrate on NOT trying to force wikipedia to always be truthful....
 * Staying neutral means, finding the WP:SOURCES that discuss the topic in question (magazines/newspapers/books/teevee/professors/guvAgencies/etc in English or otherwise and online or otherwise as long as they have editorially-controlled fact-checked content see WP:RS aka what I call wiki-reliable ... since it has little to do with real-world-reliable). Next, summarize what they say, in a neutral tone (WP:TONE), adding nothing (WP:OR), removing nothing (WP:UNDUE), and distorting nothing (WP:PUFFERY/WP:NOCRIT/WP:SPIP/etc).  As more sources are discovered, summarize those, just like before:  staying neutral, and even when sources (the wiki-reliable kind) are conflicting with each other, simply describe the source-conflict, never try to decide the outcome.  'As of YYYY, according to source M, the situation is A.  As of ZZZZ, according to source N, the situation is B.'  That's the way to keep wikipedia unbiased; don't try and delete all but the "best" sources aka the "mostest truest" sources; just neutrally reflect all the wiki-reliable sources, with the appropriate weight as based on what weight those selfsame sources give (to each subtopic).  Even as time goes by, no need to delete "outdated" sources:  just move that stuff to the history-section, and add new 'as of XXXX' sentences to reflect what sources are saying nowadays.
 * Guess what you end up with? A pretty dern neutrally-written fact-filled encyclopedia article.  With plenty of sources hyperlinked, so the readership can find out the truth for themselves... even when wikipedia doesn't necessarily have JUST the truth, covered in her pages.  (See WP:THETRUTH -- wikipedia is not capable of having JUST the truth, and deleting the untrue sources, because that would lead to a violation of pillar two WP:NPOV, and in turn would lead to arguing and violations of pillar four aka WP:NICE, and pretty soon pillar one aka WP:NOT and WP:WIKIPEDIAISANENCYCLOPEDIA would also be out the window.)  Of course, when the article is written properly, so that it neutrally reflects ALL the available wiki-reliable WP:SOURCES, the article does tend to have the real truth in the prose.  Now of course, often enough, the truth is reported side-by-side with controlled aka bought-and-paid-for stuff, and both the wiki-reliable-truth and also the wiki-"reliable"-propaganda are neutrally described, in a just-the-facts manner... but for readership that is interested in learning the truth, simply HAVING the truth recorded in wikipedia (as opposed to deleted from the other history-books by winners) is quite enough, methinks.
 * Anyways, the point here is, a big chunk of wikipedia content is gonna be controlled too, just like teevee content, newspaper content, et cetera; money and power often control the WP:SOURCES, after all, to some degree at least. That is okay, because per above analysis, the truth is there for interested readers to discover, in plain neutral just-the-facts English prose.  But, in order to have a friendly working environment here on the 'pedia, rather than constant arguing and wiki-gangs and other such nasty things, wikipedia content is supposed to neutrally reflect what those sometimes-controlled but overall-wiki-reliable WP:SOURCES say.  If the sources *themselves* are biased/propaganda/slanted/skewed/whatever, we quote them rather than just paraphrasing them, see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.  If the unbiased/truthful/correct/whatever sources exist, wikipedia can also record what those say... but we have to do it according to WP:NPOV and to WP:UNDUE, and trust that the readership will be smart enough to figure out the truth for themselves.
 * Wikipedia is not a truth-service, wikipedia is a just-the-facts neutral source-comparison service, in short. In the long run, wikipedia ends up having the truth, because (and this is a bit of a leap of faith -- but I've seen it happen in actual articles) the truth tends to win... in the long run... as long as the truth is not deleted.  Keeping the truth in wikipedia is important, so it's important not to delete sources -- aka your suggestion to Stabila711 that wikipedia should ONLY trust the data at LP.org and by implication should NOT trust the data at other websited... that's guaranteed to lead to more hot tempers, not fewer.  :-)     So try to remember that there is WP:NORUSH, and that wikipedia is about WP:V and not about WP:THETRUTH.  It is a weird system, but it works pretty well, and helps us all stay WP:NICE to each other, while we work on this cool the-truth-is-in-there-if-you-want-it-dear-reader website.


 * p.s. As for other websites, besides painstakingly tedious use of www.google.com and www.bing.com and www.yahoo.com and books.google.com and news.google.com and bing.com/translator and translate.google.com, not just the first page of hits but the first ten or twenty pages of hits, the websites I've found useful/factual/similar are www.thegreenpapers.com , www.p2016.org , and pretty often www.ballotpedia.com ... but none of those three WP:BLOGS are necessarily wiki-reliable, so usually I find something they covered, and then use search engines to find wiki-reliable WP:SOURCES which *also* covered the same thing.  For example, p2016.org lists many campaign staffers and megadonors, but as a blog is not usually considered wiki-reliable... but if I pump the name of the staffer and/or megadonor into a search, usually I'll find a politico or realclearpolitics or brietbart or washingtonpost or whatever article talking about the same exact human, which *is* a wiki-reliable source, and satisfies WP:NOTEWORTHY.  My main source of information, though, is wikipedia herself; reading the articles, and clicking on the view-history button to see what was deleted/contentious/etc, plus talkpages, is a not-terrible way to keep abreast of a topic.  I can usually help add sources for disputed factoids, once I realize there *is* a disputed factoid.
 * For ballot-access stuff specifically, we have articles on independence of clones, first past the post, and other such things; to me, those explain why third parties are mathematically always at a disadvantage, and always will be, except in extremely rare moments of history (cf the switchover from the Whigs to the Republicans in the 1850s). For ballot-access of particular third-party groups, the wikipedia article on that group, and the subsidiary articles thereof, are the best sources, but you have to watch the edit-history, since often unsourced info will be added anonymously, and then deleted as being unsourced; that's normal per WP:PROVEIT and cannot be easily fixed, but if you watch the edit-history carefully (see WP:WATCHLIST), with a bit of googling usually I can source the deleted factoid and then re-insert it, with five minutes of effort.  Apologies for the long comment, but I thought you brought up some important points worth addressing.  Good luck in your wiki-travels, feel free to leave a note on my user-talkpage if you want to chat further, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)