Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies/Archive 4

message: Just ran across this, we should add some of it to the page somehow, sorry it's so big:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=45003&mesg_id=45003
(full text removed.  Copyright status indicates this should not be copied here verbatim)
:Netoholic, you must take great pleasure in messing with what other people post, and frankly in total your behavior is unacceptable by a member of the wikipedia community even though this specific incident isn't that big of a deal.  Someone publically requesting comment and dissemination of their public research can not possibly be a copyvio, and I suspect the threshold for copyvio's on talk pages is much much much higher.  Do you even have a partial understanding of copyright law?  What about wikipedia's guidelines you love to errantly refer to?  You are by far the most trollish user I've seen in my admittedly relatively short time here on wikipedia (this is not an insult, if you disagree then by all means request arbitration, I dare you).  
:I would appreciate it if in the future you would post your issues first and wait for responses, rather than acting unilaterally, especially in regard to other user's posts on talk pages.  I would likely have removed the content myself if you asked nicely, I won't add the content back for now only because it is huge (if that was your real reason for removing it then you should have stated that reason from the beginning, in fact, you should always give your real reason for doing whatever you are doing [and you need more verbose, accurate checkin comments] rather than hide, as you do, behind obviously false accusations of wikipedia guideline violation). Zen Master 00:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed NC election result irregularities analysis 

message: I made a correction. The 'dixiecrat' phenomenon is not part of the Caltech study. It is a valid issue, and belongs in the document, but not in that section. -- RyanFreisling @ 11:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Added it to the Intro Section  -- RyanFreisling @ 11:35, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dixiecrat

message: Just ran across this, we should add some of it to the page somehow, sorry it's so big:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=45003&mesg_id=45003
(full text removed.  Copyright status indicates this should not be copied here verbatim)
:Netoholic, you must take great pleasure in messing with what other people post, and frankly in total your behavior is unacceptable by a member of the wikipedia community even though this specific incident isn't that big of a deal.  Someone publically requesting comment and dissemination of their public research can not possibly be a copyvio, and I suspect the threshold for copyvio's on talk pages is much much much higher.  Do you even have a partial understanding of copyright law?  What about wikipedia's guidelines you love to errantly refer to?  You are by far the most trollish user I've seen in my admittedly relatively short time here on wikipedia (this is not an insult, if you disagree then by all means request arbitration, I dare you).  
:I would appreciate it if in the future you would post your issues first and wait for responses, rather than acting unilaterally, especially in regard to other user's posts on talk pages.  I would likely have removed the content myself if you asked nicely, I won't add the content back for now only because it is huge (if that was your real reason for removing it then you should have stated that reason from the beginning, in fact, you should always give your real reason for doing whatever you are doing [and you need more verbose, accurate checkin comments] rather than hide, as you do, behind obviously false accusations of wikipedia guideline violation). Zen Master 00:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed NC election result irregularities analysis 

message: The article is getting too big, too redundant and the organization unwieldy, I propose we create a new wikipedia article to the effect of "Criticisms of voting machines" or "Criticisms of Diebold voting machines" or "Criticisms of electonic voting machines" or all of the above.  With the titles to be decided by whoever actually creates those pages.  Note: those articles would be general/historical criticisms and not cover the 2004 election, that stuff would still belong in this article.  Zen Master 23:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: General material about electronic voting machines could go to the existing electronic voting.  That would leave behind anything about non-electronic voting machines, but that's not a problem.  What's making the article unwieldy is the huge amount of information that relates specifically to electronic voting machines in the 2004 election.  I think that's what should be spun off to a daughter article. JamesMLane 23:29, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need to split part of page to new article "Criticisms of electronic voting machines" 

message: (dormant?)
Minus votes from the 12 or so states with data irregularities how many votes did bush and kerry each receieve?   Is there evidence of smaller degree of fraud/irregularity in the other 38 states?  Maybe I will perform that calculation myself.  Zen Master 22:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, what I want to do is for someone/me to create an election results chart per state that assumes the non weighted exit polls were correct (i.e. Kerry has 2% more of FL's vote than bush sp we should adjust the vote totals accordingly for this excersize).  What would the final vote counts look like if the exit polls were right?  Then we can compare the difference in % support for bush and kerry between the states with data irregularity and the rest (this could be interesting).  I.e. it might be suspicious if this unweighted data exit poll result chart showed bush and kerry with the same percentages nationally.  I.e perhaps the exit polling data will show Kerry received 52%+ in the 12 or so data irregularity states, and 52%+ everywhere else.  It will also be interesting to compare with 2000, 1996 and before. Zen Master 22:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Margin in non-irregularities states? 

message: Why is this 2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversies second article (which does not point here, or to other subpages) necessary? Thanks. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate article at 2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversies 

message: May I say that I'm pleased with Z-M's new split of the lede on this entry.  It was getting a bit unwieldy.  Baylink 22:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: huh, what are you trying to say?  I just cleaned up the introduction, Kevin did all the super good work moving parts of the article into sub articles.  Zen Master 22:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newly split lede 

message: An excellent summary of the irregularities under active investigation can be seen in the House Democrats' letterto Kenneth Blackwell, sent Dec 2. . Might do well for us to put some stakes in the ground around those specific questions and possible answers to come from OH Sec. of State Blackwell. -- RyanFreisling @ 07:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  House Democrats' Dec. 2 letter to Blackwell