Talk:Electoral-vote.com

message: :Image:Electoral-vote.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Electoral-vote.jpg

message: Shouldnt the article mention other websites that offer similar information?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.246.126 (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Similar sites?

message: Aprock followed me over here and removed my addition "The site content is produced solely by Tanenbaum." This is important information needed to evaluate the usefulness of this website and is supported by the first reference:
:Who is Behind This Website?
:Me. Just me. To make it crystal clear, this Website is my personal project. I paid for it myself and did all the work myself except as noted in the Acknowledgements section on the Welcome page...The opinions expressed here are my own.
He also removed the important information as to exactly who Tanenbaum is--a computer science professor. Drrll (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No information has been removed, however the copy has been edited to be more encyclopedic.  The first sentence of the article clearly states that it is his website.  With respect to various details about other activities for which he is notable, there is a separate article about him which goes into the details. aprock (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give you the point that the first sentence "clearly states that it is his website."  I do think, however, that it's important for the reader of this article to readily see exactly who Tanenbaum is without having to consult his article. Drrll (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tanenbaum's involvement in the site is quite clear in the article.  I've added his occupation to the first sentence. aprock (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of relevant information about Tanenbaum and website 

message: The last updates appear to have been in December 2014. The site has a prominent Dec. 07 banner at the top. Is the site now dead, or does it only update when conducting analysis? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Site 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: I'll be frank: I hadn't heard of this website before I landed on this page via the random article function here on Wikipedia.  However, having looked through the linked references, I cannot help thinking that this article is based on self promotion by the website's creator.  Of the listed sources, all except 2 are links to the website.  The other 2 sources imply that this website was regularly checked by some people in 2004 and 2008, but one of them is completely trivial, and while the other gives a brief description of how the site works, I gather that the site has changed since 2004.  Was this website a 5-minute wonder back in 2004 that has limped along for the following 15 years?  I suppose if this site was fairly accurate in predicting previous elections and people noticed, it might be notable.  Of course, then people would have written exposes along the lines of, "This formerly obscure website accurately predicted the outcome of the election!  Here's how they did it: ..."  Such articles are also better places to find sources for methods and history than the website itself.  Rockphed (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a sourcing issue, not notability. I'm removing the notability tag; you're welcome to take this to AfD, but I think you'd be wasting your time. Certainly the site isn't as prominent as it was early on, especially when there was speculation about the identity of the Votemaster, but notability isn't temporary. I agree that the article could use more third-party sources. --BDD (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability