User talk:Electiontechnology

Hello World
Please leave me messages here... or review my discussion /archive

Write-in candidate
If you don't think something should be included in an article that's applicable to the article and that is well cited you don't just erase it. You discuss it. Unless your an admin you shouldn't be trying to engage in an edit war.Racingstripes (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This citations aren't the issue here, the notability is. My apologies if you consider this edit warring, but I don't see this fitting these edits fitting that definition. Also, regardless of admin status, no one should be engaging in edit warring. Electiontechnology (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, you're the second person to erase the edit which is why i feel ambushed. If a user thinks something is notable and another doesn't feel the edit is notable it should be discussed and not immediately erased.  I feel that's the why there is a discussion page.Racingstripes (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, as I'm certainly happy to discuss it here or on the article talk page, to quote WP guidelines "...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Simply removing something once for legitimate reason doesn't qualify as edit warring. The write-in article has unfortunately become an unencyclopedic list, in my opinion. WP has guidelines for what should be included in lists of people: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category". I think the article likely could be rewritten to discuss the notable aspects of the people in the list and the others removed. There is the beginnings of that conversation on the talk page. For instance, you recent addition of Serphin Maltese may be clearly notable (worthy of full prose rather than a meaningless bullet) if in fact the claim on his website that his write-in campaign was "one of the largest primary write-in votes in our nation’s history". That said the current source you provided provides only the statistics of the election and a claim that it "received nationwide attention". Without substantiating citations, that does not in my opinion meet the requirements previous referenced in WP policy for importance/notability. I encourage you to join the discussion currently going on about the future of the article. Electiontechnology (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Internet Voting
Hello! I'm new here. I think there is a need for a separate article specifically on Internet voting. When I search that term, I get re-directed to "Electronic Voting." But that long and techie article hardly addresses Internet voting - which is way different than voting machines in polling places. I came across this 2009 post: "There seems to be an ongoing effort to remove all internet voting references and bury them on obscure wiki pages. Even the fact that "internet voting" is routed to this page, and then all references to it are then deleted, seems like an overt and deliberate attempt to mislead. While authors biases are always inevitable, this one is so far over the top. At a minimum, the "internet voting" reference routing of this page should be removed immediately, as this page avoids the topic entirely. Some editors attempts to "bury" all internet voting references on pages people are unlikely to find is shameful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kops2222 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)" You seem to know your way around. Please tell me what the obstacles are to starting a new article simply entitled "Internet Voting."

Thanks, --DrWJK (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC) DrWJK
 * Dr. Kelleher, I'm not sure Kops2222 was too accurate in that depiction. Back in the pre-08 days there was a lot more interest in election-related articles, particularly as they related to DREs and OpScan. Honestly, if you ask me the primary reason that there's no article is apathy among editors rather than a conspiracy against it. That said, I started an article on Internet voting some time ago and there's certainly a lot more that needs to be added. That said feel free to contribute at that link and if we get enough together to form a full article I think we would certainly be filling a void. Just a note though, I recommend taking some time and learning some of the basics of WP editing. I left a canned instructional welcome on your talk page that has some useful links. Outside of the written instructions, be aware that there are a wide variety of opinions on WP. For the most part people are polite and have to goal of consensus, but when in doubt take it to talk pages and discuss changes if there's any dispute. Usually that step will keep things moving in the overall right direction. I'll try to find some time to contribute as well. Best of luck editing.
 * Electiontechnology (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand this way of communication, from talk page to talk page. But I like what you have done w/ the Internet Voting article. I can add a lot to it. My book on the subject just came out. While I write as an advocate there, I can write as a more sober historian here. I provided an example for you to check out. I'm not sure about your statement re fax voting in Operation Desert Storm. Do you have a rerefence for that? Probably your term "a ballot faxing service" is clear enough to distinguish that from the VOI online system, w/o further clarification. Let me know what you think of the stuff I added.  If its OK, I'll add to the SERVE section -- in my view, that's the most important event in the history of IV in the US.DrWJK (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Electoral fraud

 * - Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard

Your desired addition to Electoral fraud is the subject of a BLP noticeboard report - on first look at all the citations the addition imo is undue and presents a possibility as if a done fact - please do not replace the allegations against living people without consensus at the noticeboard - thanks - You  really  can  23:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First, my objection (and that of others) was the broad deletion of content. The allegation is specifically of a violation of Wisconsin's election laws. In an abundance of caution, I have removed the references to the individuals in question. I have replaced the original content sourced by reliable sources and further added the specific complain made and the response from the accused. The larger issue at hand is the article for Electoral fraud is in a terrible sense of disarray, poorly authored and even more poorly sourced. My point here is that the motivation should be to improve these articles rather than delete large swathes of largely valid content. Electiontechnology (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have again removed it - it was little better - Please do not replace disputed contentions content into a BLP whilst discussion is at the noticeboard - seek consensus there - You  really  can  10:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You, thanks for your concern here. It looks like the wider WP community is involved in forming much needed consensus here. I agree with other editors that your use of the BLP noticeboard is outside the scope it was intended for, but I encourage you to take your further concerns to the discussion page. Consensus rather the blanket deletions should always be the ultimate goal. Electiontechnology (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Election denial movement for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Election denial movement is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Election denial movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. rootsmusic (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)