User talk:CarynAnnHarlos

From LPedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Requests for Deletion

  • Added the remaining templates for the Requests for Deletion process. You did it correctly for what I put there, now there are templates and instructions to improve functionality. When you go to create a deletion request, there will be the two fields (page title and reason for deletion) and that is where you can insert that information. I tested a couple of times LPedia:Requests for Deletion?/Testing and LPedia:Requests for Deletion?/Testing 2 and those pages will be deleted, but if you do your own test you can see what the page now generates. I added the other elements to LPedia:Requests for Deletion/Order of the Arrow. AMK152 (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Text Cheat Sheet

  • This is a helpful reference [1]


Hey CAH!

Could you please rename this account to User:MJL? Thank you in advance! :D

MattLongCT?Talk? 12:05, 22 June 2019 (CDT)

  • LOL, I am not sure how to do that but I will ask at the next meeting of the bears of bigger brain than I. CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2019 (CDT)
    I gotchu XD –MattLongCT?Talk? 17:39, 22 June 2019 (CDT)


Is it okay if I use AutoWikiBrowser on this wiki to start with basic copyediting and formatting maintenance on articles? Also, with regard to the above section about renames, I can help if you want. You do seem to have the correct extension installed to preform account renames. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2019 (CDT)

Don't you need admin level to use AutoWikiBrowser (which I have used before to good effect)? Also for the renames? I would need to get committee approval, but if you are willing to do the needed maintenance, I am more than willing to do so. You can see I have been pretty busy doing a lot of it solo and need help. I just finished (almost) doing a major category overhaul which was a hot mess. CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2019 (CDT)
I would not need admin rights to use AWB, but it would help in cleanup for deletions and such. See my reply to you on my talk page. In regard to renames, as a bureaucrat you can rename users. It appears you have the extension that can do this via Special:RenameUser. I have a decent amount of free time and am willing to help with basically any maintenance necessary, so if there’s anything I can do please leave a message on my talk page or email me. Also, this site has no valid SSL certificate; it’s best to fix that as it could dissuade people from coming to this site. I’m not sure who hosts this but it shouldn’t be too hard. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2019 (CDT)
Hm, seems SSL worked fine for me after I went to the log in page and clicked “use secure connection”. Could just be me then, although I’m not sure why there’s an option (or even default) not to use a secure connection, heh. Vermont (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2019 (CDT)

I tried loading AWB up again, and was unable to get it to login on this wiki. What settings do you have under the site settings that allows it to work? Thanks, Vermont (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2019 (CDT)

Meeting on the 17th

Hello? Unfortunately, I won't be able to partake in that meeting, although please feel free to email me with any questions that may arise during the meeting about myself, if any do, and I'll respond to it as soon as possible. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2019 (CDT)

1, 2

1. I am a partisan. I try to be as accurate as possible. But LPedia is a party resource and I do not consider myself under any obligation to present that accurate information in an unbiased manner. For example, I've seen it debated on wikipedia whether more recent information should be listed first, because it is more relevant, or whether older information should be listed first, because listing it out chronologically from oldest to newest is more encyclopedic.

I honestly don't give a shit either way. That's an argument for wikipedia. I always list more recent election years first and elections from the party's early years last. Why? Because more recent elections generally have better results. That impression matters.

The same line of thinking applies to List of Public Officials who Joined the Libertarian Party while in Office. The 2016 - 2019 years have more conversions and at higher level offices than the early years. As a partisan, I want the first view to be of the information that presents the party in the best light. Do you not?

On a side note, why did you change "This list is very incomplete, especially prior to January, 2008 " to "This list is very incomplete, especially prior to January, 2000 "? There was a reason it said January, 2008. I went through all of the "News" and "Features" listed on the Libertarian Party web site. They stop in late 2007. Did you do any sort of research on the period between January 2000 and December 2007 to rule out other instances of party switching? I wouldn't count on LP News. There are plenty of examples of party switches in recent years that never made LP News. I added a few party-switches mentioned in earlier editions of LP News, but there is no reason to think that earlier editions were any better than later editions. I would not assume the list is complete just on the basis of LP News.

In the same vein, Sam Seder is an asshole troll who hates libertarians and has openly discussed getting the Libertarian Presidential nomination for the sole purpose of campaigning for the Democratic nominee. We have no obligation to give him free air time. That page should be deleted.

And so should the page on Uses Of Platform To Attack LP. I can't even share the National Platform with people who I'm trying to encourage to join the Libertarian Party because someone put a link to the Uses Of Platform To Attack LP page on it. "Hey, here's a link to that issue you and the LP agree on, and it's got all of the historical platforms so you can see how consistent we've been on that over the years. Just ignore that part at the bottom where we provide a space for our ideological enemies to call us pedophiles." No. It was a bad idea to put that link on the National Platform page and it was straight up retarded to create the page in the first place. Honestly, if I had seen it before you got here, I would have waited until Strangelv was asleep for a few weeks and then blanked the page in the middle of 200 revert-vandalism edits, hoping he wouldn't catch it.

It should be deleted immediately. And I say that as someone who does not want to delete anything libertarian. But Sam Seder and Uses of Platform To Attack LP are not libertarian - they are anti-libertarian. Only a moron gives their opponents free ammo to use against them.

2. You just took a bunch of pages which were either complete or close to it and turned them into junk.

List of Libertarians Elected to Office in 2019
List of Libertarians elected to office in 2018
List of Libertarians elected to office in 2017
List of Libertarians Elected to Office in 2016
List of Libertarians Elected to Office in 2015
List of Libertarians Elected to Office in 2014
List of Libertarians Elected to Office in 2013
List of Libertarians Elected to Office in 2012
List of Libertarians Elected to Office in 2011
List of Libertarians Elected to Office in 2010

Those were complete or very close to being complete in accordance with the title of the page: elected to office. But as a list of Officeholders by year? Even including those who switched parties, they are, at best, one quarter complete. In other words, the new title you gave it makes the LP appear 75% worse than it actually is. That impression matters. There are no appointments listed and most of the people elected serve for multiple years. It is very difficult just attempting to keep track of local election results. My personal list has been more complete (and much more accurate) than what the national party has put out for the last several years. But also attempting to keep track of appointments and when all of their terms expire is impossible. Even the national party, which presumably gets fed some of that info from state and local parties, if not the officeholders themselves, has made a mess of it. They've been trying to do it for decades and their list is still riddled with all sorts of errors - failing to remove officeholders who switch to another party, failing to remove officeholders when their terms expire, forgetting to add elected or appointed candidates, classifying appointments as elected officeholders - it's just a mess. And it could not be done correctly even if there was a representative from every state providing input on it to LPedia. But calling a list of elected Libertarians by year a list of officeholders by year shouldn't even qualify as a bad attempt at completeness.

AJPEG (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2019 (CDT)

1. It is the style usage here to use ascending chronologically. We do that for consistency. And no, we don't try to put things in a way that have a more positive spin, though I don't agree that other even serves that purpose. This is a historical archive, no one is fooled by switching order of dates, and it is fully logical to have less at the beginning when the Party is brand new. The 2000 to 2008 was just a typo. I did not intend to change the year. All declared candidates get listed and would qualify for pages. You can certainly add a comment about reputation etc. If you would like the committee to review the uses of the platform to attack the LP for deletion you can put in a request for deletion. It is a factual piece and contains relevant information - it does no good to bury how we might be attacked but rather to be aware so as to combat it. I did not create that page so I do not know the entire intent.
2. There were already several similar articles of similar names with either elected or officeholders. I am not at all sure what your objection is - is it just that there are no terms listed? If it is an article by year then the relevant information is that year, not the whole term, and the actual terms should be listed on the candidates page itself - also when a term ends for someone who spanned multiple years, the maintenance could be extensive as numerous pages would need to be edited, though more likely some would be and some would not be. All of the same information is there, minus terms. The important issue is Libertarians in office, whether elected or appointed.... or perhaps I am just not at all understanding the objection. It does seem though that a note or template stating that the lists may be incomplete is also needed.
The committee meetings are open and you are welcome to attend - let me know if you would like the log-in information.
CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2019 (CDT)
You can claim whatever style usage you want. But don't claim "we" do that for consistency because there isn't any consistency. When I started here in 2014, there were a handful of election results on a few state pages. And they went in opposite directions - New York and Connecticut went oldest to newest, Vermont and Louisiana went newest to oldest. And there were other style variations, like some were left-aligned while others were centered. I am the one who standardized it in the course of adding roughly 12,000 more election results. And I went most recent to oldest for the purposes of creating a slightly more positive impression, not in an attempt to fool people, as you disingenuously attribute as my purpose. Logically, the order doesn't matter. Psychologically, it does. And that is the way I entered all information - voter registrations, revenue, endorsements, etc. Have fun reversing it all while you're entering new data in 2020.
I put in a request for deletion for both of those pages in February. You seemed to think that a ready to go list of attacks on the Libertarian Party would help our candidates more than oppo research teams or trolls like Sam Seder. And now we can add your apparent belief that preserving historical attacks on the LP, regardless of how truthful or fair they are, is worth driving away inquisitive, prospective libertarians. The intent of the person who created that page is irrelevant. Keeping it up is idiotic.
Everything I do here, everything you do here or in the course of your duties with the LP, everything the national LP does down to the subtlest and rarely seen details, within the bounds of truthfulness and libertarian principles, should be designed for the growth of libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. The psychological effect of better performance as a first impression serves that goal. The promotion of trolls and the preservation of old attacks on the LP do not.
Think about the election/officeholder timeline. Someone may be elected to a two year term in November, 2014. They take office in January 2015, hold office throughout 2016 and leave office in January 2017.
So I (and a couple of others in the case of 2017) made a list of people who were elected in 2014. They may or may not have been officeholders in 2014. They may not have become officeholders until 2015. And their names would have to continue to be listed as officeholders in 2015, 2016, and 2017, if you wanted to build such a list. Or - maybe they did take office in 2014. Maybe the election was in April 2014 and they were sworn in May 2014.
Local offices are commonly anywhere between one year and six years. In the case of appointments, they could be just a few months. In order to build a list of officeholders, you would have to know both the date they were sworn in and the date they left office, checking on them all along the way to ensure that they did not switch parties or resign before their terms were up. It is extremely difficult just finding election results for many local offices. But building a list of people who were elected is possible. It is not possible to build a list of officeholders with any hope of accuracy.
The point is, you can't just take a list of people who were elected in 2014 and call it a list of officeholders in 2014. Some of them were officeholders in that year and some of them were not. Calling it a list of officeholders is wrong for everyone who was sworn in the year after their election, and incomplete as no appointees were listed and no multi-year office holders are listed beyond (maybe) the first year. You turned a complete or nearly complete list of elected Libertarians into junk.
I have no interest in your meetings.
AJPEG (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2019 (CDT)
I do not know why you have such a combative stance - everyone here is passionate for the party. Yes, there is standardization now that might not have existed in the past as LPedia is now under the adminstration of a distinct permanent committee established by the LNC rather than simply being deleted which was about to happen. Myself and a handful of others saved the site from demolition - I am not your enemy. I will pass along your comments to the committee now that I understand better what your objections are (thank you) for their review and update the entry here with their comments. And that list you complain of was made by someone involved just as early as you - Marc Montoni. You can speak with him if you wish about his intentions but I am not inclined to delete another editors work that is historically accurate. Our mission here is history, not spin. If you are ever interested in the future, you are welcome to the meetings. You can find log-in information at LPedia: LPHPC Agenda. I expect we will discuss your concerns on the third Wednesday of this month and your input would be valuable. CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2019 (CDT)


Hi Caryn! I had hoped to attend the last few meetings, although I've unfortunately been unable to. I'm nearly always occupied in that time slot now, so I won't be in those but I'll continue watching RecentChanges here. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2019 (CST)

I can always make the recordings available to you as well. CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2019 (CST)

Question on Deletation

Why are you deleting all the work that I am trying to put into Lpedia!!!!

Why are you deleting all the work that I am trying to put into Lpedia!!!!

I delegated one page because it already exists. See National Convention 2020. I deleted 2020 National Convention which was absolutely blank.CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2020 (CDT)

the other changes were not deletions, they were adding missing categories... I am the one responsible for patrolling changes.CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2020 (CDT)

I see none of the work got saved because it was deleted by the time I tried to save. I will change my links to the correct page that already exists. Thanks!! There should be consistency in how people name pages. I created the page name based on how the page from 2018 is named. This is going to create redundancies if not addressed!

I think you might have gotten confused - all of the national conventions are named consistently - we are very fastidous about that. See National Convention 2018. The naming convention for national conventions is [[National Convention YEAR]]. If you can remember, please sign any messages with four tildes like this ~~~~ and it will pull in your name and time.CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2020 (CDT)

Portland Massacre Research

On the topic of your research on the Portland Massacre, you note on that article "Her initial notes confirmed several voting errors where definite NAY votes were recorded as AYE." Is this backwards or were the votes the opposite of what you would expect (vote AYE to oppose the plank or NAY to support it) in which case could that have caused some confusion and led people to vote the opposite of the way they intended? Dan Smith (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2022 (CDT)

This was on the old style ballot to delete planks - so there were votes recorded as AYE to delete every plank where the people in question definitely vote NAY. CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2022 (CDT)
That's confusing - was this explained properly or is it possible some people voted AYE because they supported the planks? I know there are multiple theories as to why this occurred, just an interesting thought that came to me Dan Smith (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2022 (CDT)
It could have been confusion, we really don't know. That is one of the theories that the form of the ballot was different from prior conventions. That seems like the most likely answer. I am shocked that those who opposed this, such as David Nolan, did not demand an audit or reconsideration since the vote totals were so close. I can you that several of the people I interviewed (Samuel Lawrence and Barry Hess IIRC) were shocked that they were recorded as voting to delete. One person who I am certain opposed I have not been able to locate yet - George Squire (sp?) CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2022 (CDT)