Jump to content

Talk:Libertarian Party of Virginia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Conflict of Interest Accusation

I am not a candidate. I have never met any of the candidates. Nor am I involved with projects and products they are involved with. Therefore, I do not believe I am affiliated with the people, places, or things I have contributed to. All the information previously provided can be found on the Libertarian Party of Virginia's website. http://lpva.com/ Antarctica4Liberty 17:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Good to know and I've removed the {{coi}} template. However you should probably review Wikipedia:Third-party sources. Toddst1 (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I have updated the citations; hopefully, they meet Wikipedia:Third-party sources. If anyone else would like to contribute to this page, please, do. Antarctica4Liberty 00:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding election information

I have added election information for the Libertarian Party of Virginia along with Virginia State Board of Elections citation. If you see any discrepancies, please note or add this information. Antarctica4Liberty 09:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallibertyforall (talk • contribs)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Libertarian Party of Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libertarian Party of Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libertarian Party of Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Libertarian Party of Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libertarian Party of Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Currently someone [redacted] is attempting to edit the page.

An improper vote was attempted by bad actors on 9/12/22 in violation of LPVA constitution, the governing Roberts Rules of Order, and state law regarding non stock corporations. 209.10.66.76 (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

We have no way of verifying these claims. The state obviously does not view it as illegal, as they have approved the Articles of Dissolution, which you can see on their website (also cited in the article) [1]. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
We have no way of verifying the claims of the rogue actors (because they acted improperly and also lied on the dissolution form) either, yet you seem to immediately jump to their defense. Highly suspicious. You also deleted my comment (Personal attack removed) because you refuse to accept facts. 2600:8806:A501:A100:2112:7C15:E5C5:C3F3 (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
What reliable sources are reporting your claims? —C.Fred (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
What reliable sources are reporting yours? All I've seen is crap simply quoting the rogue actors and eating up their every word without bothering to do an ounce of journalism and talk to the actual members of the party who are still here. 2600:8806:A501:A100:2112:7C15:E5C5:C3F3 (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The article is citing an AP wire story that ran in, at least, the Seattle Times. —C.Fred (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, Seattle, which is *checks notes* nowhere near Virginia. I'm sure they know exactly what's going on here, certainly more than someone who actually attended the meeting that started this mess. Get out of here with that nonsense. 2600:8806:A501:A100:2112:7C15:E5C5:C3F3 (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
So, an AP wire story with nationwide attention against...nothing. We'll go with the wire service source, per policy. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Right, cause simply quoting some rogue actors is perfectly credible. GFY. 2600:8806:A501:A100:2112:7C15:E5C5:C3F3 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The national party considers the affiliate still present. The sources used are mainly pointing back to the same article, but several not the dissolution is in dispute in the articles. According to the members of the state, and national party, the affiliate still exists.
https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/g/lnc-business/c/fnRuE9EjUN8/m/kPG05SF9AgAJ - national party confirming its existence
https://va.lp.org/ - local affiliate confirming the same.
The repeated assertations of deletion are page vandalism. Horus829 (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
As of today, va.lp.org returns an error of "Registration has been disabled." —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
They domain has now shifted to https://www.lpofva.org , previous URL was correct at the time of its original edit. Correct webpage was added as part of the edit. Thanks, Horus829 (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Also, see the national party website, which links its active affiliates, and is the overall arbiter of whether affiliates exist or do not. https://www.lp.org/state-affiliates/ Horus829 (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Further information:
Media story discussing the previous articles surrounding dissolution, noting that it is in dispute, and that the local state party, intra state level affiliates, the national party, and the national officers all consider the affiliate to be intact.
Article additionally points out that the Viginia Mercury checked with the state department of elections, and found that it is still intact.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2022/09/libertarian-groups-dispute-virginia-chapter-dissolution/ Horus829 (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Question on reverted edits

Why were my edits reverted? I see the above discussion, but at least according to this article [2], as well as the other news site articles cited, the party's status could be considered in dispute, at the very least. It is not at all obvious that the dissolution attempt was successful. Finally, is LPedia not considered a disinterested 3rd party for purposes of citation? It's managed by the national LP's Historical Preservation Committee, not the LPVA. Perhaps I should take another crack at it, this time making it more obvious that its status is still in contention? It's not accurate to state, carte blanche, that the dissolution is complete and/or permanent. Please advise. Thank you. --Toby Beaman (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

LPedia is a wiki, which is unreliable user generated content. Washington Examiner and Independent Political Report are unreliable sources. The sources do state that the party dissolved. They mention that some people have said they think it was invalid, but that doesn't make it invalid. They mention that the state corporation commission approved the articles of dissolution, which is also cited directly in the article. You should certainly not "take another crack at it", you will just end up blocked for misrepresenting the sources in the article. Nothing in any of the sources supports your assertion that the "attempt failed". 25stargeneral (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I'm new around here, and trying to wrap my head around what I've read in the guidance and apply it in practice so I don't repeat mistakes. Taking another look at the User Generated Comment definition, I now understand why LPedia is not considered a reliable source. And revisiting the Independent Political Report, I can see why it would be considered unreliable according to Wikipedia's definition. However, why would the Washington Examiner be considered unreliable? Or, alternatively, as a professional, for-profit weekly magazine with a strong web presence, why is such a large and established media outlet considered more unreliable than other outlets and websites cited in the article, such as Reason magazine, The Stafford County Sun, baconsrebellion.com, roanokefreepress.com, and bearingdrift.com? Toby Beaman (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Even the reuters article stated the dissolution was in dispute, to say nothing of the underlying issue with the differences between PACS and corporations.
The Washington Examiner is a major publication, and though I think even the designation of independent political report being unreliable is dubious at best, the Examiner is a major publication, and certainly worthy of citation. 64.79.62.23 (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Washington_Examiner. As for it being in dispute, the sources clearly state that the vote to dissolve passed and that the corporation commission has approved the dissolution. They say some in the party "question the legitimacy" of the vote. People also questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, but that doesn't mean it was rigged. Claiming something does not make it reality. The sources tell us what the reality is. 25stargeneral (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you again for the explanation. For a newcomer, this is extremely helpful. Regarding the Examiner, it still makes no sense as to how, for example, Reason magazine (by the Reliable Sources vetting list's own admission is a partisan/biased outlet according) is somehow more reliable that the Washington Examiner. In a fair world, they would be placed on approximately equal footing with regard to reliability. I will, of course, comply by not including it as a source for the sorts of facts being discussed in the wiki entry, but the viability of that list really needs to be revisited. It would appears that the group of editors who decide such things is as biased as some of the outlets in questions (perhaps moreso), calling into question the reliability of many wiki articles forced to ignore certain information. Toby Beaman (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
(Also - I don't know why, but the other user's comments are "in line" with mine, making it appear that all the comments came from the same person. I'm not sure what happened there, but it is a little misleading to a third party who happens to stumble across this discussion. My comment was registered at 15:50 UTC, 18 Oct, and the other user's comment was registered at 16:46 UTC, 18 Oct, but looks like one big post.) Toby Beaman (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The threading of the comments is appropriate. Since both are replying to me, both use the same level of indentation (see WP:INDENT). The signatures are used to tell them apart. The Washington Examiner has been discussed eight times in open discussions. Anyone is free to open a discussion on a source at any time by going at the reliable sources noticeboard. 25stargeneral (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarian_Party_of_Virginia/Archive_1&oldid=1251903099"