User talk:69.123.66.114

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop adding commercial links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. HawkerTyphoon 20:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation

Please do not copy and paste verbatum copies of copyrighted material like you did on the Connecticut senate race article with this change, which was copy and pasted directly from here. Continued insertion of copyrighted material may result in you being banned from editing articles on Wikipedia.--Bobblehead 20:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

--Aha. True, I did copy 2 sentences (with minor mods) from the NY Times piece. (The site you reference actually appears to be a verbatim copy of the NY Times piece.) It seems it would be simpler and better, though, to simply add a credit to the NY Times and then keep this piece of info about Ballot Access News (which by the way was the ultimate source of the info, not the NY Times, and which I also checked directly), OR, to modify the wording.

That course is made even more important by the following, which just appeared in Ballot Access News:

Connecticut Secretary of State Proposes “Sore Loser” Law August 11th, 2006 Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut’s Secretary of State, said on August 10 that she will ask the Connecticut legislature next year to pass a law making it illegal for anyone who runs in a primary and loses, from then being an independent candidate.

In short, the "solution" being proposed to Lieberman is to outlaw him (and in my view, to outlaw democracy). A better solution would be to enact range voting, which would keep democracy legal but at the same time eliminate "spoiler" and "vote-splitting" scenarios since they do not exist with Range Voting (but do exist with plurality & instant runoff). Needless to say, the NY Times is not mentioning that - but Wikipedia should.

Some other points of interest would be:

  • that the Daily Kos investigated and found the true problem

with Lieberman's web site was not that it was attacked, it was that it was a $15/month site with a 10GB bandwidth limit, which was simply inadequate for a race receiving worldwide attention on election day and for a site with a lot of images i.e. bytes. I don't particularly want to add that myself since I am not an expert on websites, but it again is an opportunity for wikipedia to outdo the NY Times.

Incidentally, I'm not sure what "commercial site" you speak of, but if it is the "Center for Range Voting" that is not one, that's a nonprofit educational site. Or maybe you have something else in mind and/or that somebody else did.