Talk:Voter-verified paper audit trail

message: I have reverted to my more detailed entry.  Discussions regarding voting equipment that ignore the election process and the duties of the election official are not useful to anyone.  Please expand the technical portions as necessary but please do so within the context of election processes and laws, thank you. 
:Who wrote this?  It seems incredibly naive to think that the 'election process' is sufficient to prevent against vote rigging and fraud.  Poll workers and election officials have been at times been found to be clueless and not entirely impartial, sometimes even disregarding electoral statutes altogether.  Many countries, the US most certainly included, have a history of electoral fraud perpetrated with preventive regulations in place.  In the case of electronic voting, when there is no paper trail, and in which voting machine companies have a vested interest in errors not being discovered, the stakes are even higher.
:Election fraud has happened and will happen again even under near-ideal circumstances.  Right now we're not even close. LeoTrottier 00:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion

message: I'm not so sure I agree with the collapsing of the VVPAT page and the VVAT page.  The latter is a super-set of the former and many of us (for example, in the ACCURATE group) see VVPAT as one possible solution that is particularly appropriate for the short-term. -- Joebeone (Talk) 16:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: VVPAT vs. VVAT

message: I just reverted extensive changes  to this page that should be discussed here and cited thoroughly.  -- Joebeone (Talk) 19:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  extensive changes 

message: I'm going to review this page and make some changes (that I'll cite sources for). Let me know if you'd like to help. -- Joebeone (Talk) 18:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  review 

message: Is it Verified or Verifiable? I really think verifiable is more accurate and in general makes more sense. Anyone agree?
--Electiontechnology 00:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: Why is this here? There is arleady a ballot article, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the VVPAT.
--Electiontechnology 00:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "The Ballot" Section

message: The examples listed are not ballotless, do not rely on DREs, and do not really rely on an audit in the traditional sense of the word. In fact, they are fundamentally different as voters take a receipt home with them. Better examples would be the VVPAT add-ons from Diebold, Seqouia, ES&S and other vendors. --Toshardin 00:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Examples and Confusion with E2E Receipt-Based Systems

message: there should be no "conclusion" at the end of an encyclopedic article as it's no research. this one is anyway wrong since even the brennan study says, that election fraud is not possible if enough people check the VVPAT. so it does a lot more than just raise voter confidence (if implemented properly).
:A VVPAT component of a DRE is not a prophylactic against equipment malfunction or every form  of election fraud but it may help improve voter confidence. It is a usable way to enable a recount of the intended votes, without VVPAT only the stored votes might be recounted. In case of a manipulation that might not be the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taintain (talk • contribs) 11:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with removing the conclusion. --Electiontechnology 19:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: *disingenious -> disingenuous
*Readable by the human eye does not conclude "more secure" or "trustable"
*Software is need not always be Proprietary.
*source doesn't support every voting machine, changed to "Insecure voting machine".
*"Corrupt or malfunctioning voting machines that do not have VVPAT capabilities might store votes other than as intended by the voter unnoticed" regardless of VVPATs.
--Electiontechnology 04:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy update

message: Please understand that your edits are incorrect. You have been notified of this.
#Your edits are in the wrong place. Eliminating the header of the article does not improve the article.
#Your edits are not exactly correct. There are a number of different types of VVPATs and they do not all follow your description.
#Your edits are largely duplicated in the "VVPAT Application" section.
#Your edit "VVPAT is not a substitute for any type of paper ballot." is commentary and not suitable for an encyclopedia.
You are in violation of the Wikipedia Three-revert rule as you have be notified and ignored. I am referring you to an administrator who can hopefully solve this problem.
--Electiontechnology 19:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous user 71.103.137.109 Edits

message: I eliminated the reference to the VVPAT under glass being known as "the Mercuri method" since there is no reliable reference indicating that it is called or known as this anywhere in the world, other that at Wikipedia.  While I don't doubt that Mercuri may have discussed this configuration in her thesis, I doubt even she called it the Mercuri Method in her thesis.  (Can you imagine the eye rolling that would have caused among her professors?!)  Without any references showing that this attribution is a common one, it smacks of someone either self-promoting or trying to push an unaccepted term and attribution into use. --Fixn (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercuri Method??? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Voter-verified paper audit trail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070127111242/http://www.diebold.com:80/dieboldes/AccuVoteTSX.swf to http://www.diebold.com/dieboldes/AccuVoteTSX.swf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061021170624/http://www.sequoiavote.com/photo.php?photo=SequoiaEdgeWithVeriVotePrinter.jpg&title=Sequoia%20AVC%20Edge%20With%20VeriVote%20Printer to http://www.sequoiavote.com/photo.php?photo=SequoiaEdgeWithVeriVotePrinter.jpg&title=Sequoia%20AVC%20Edge%20With%20VeriVote%20Printer
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071224114830/http://www.sequoiavote.com:80/edge2Plus.html to http://www.sequoiavote.com/edge2Plus.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071224115019/http://www.sequoiavote.com:80/advantagePlus.html to http://www.sequoiavote.com/advantagePlus.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061031083048/http://www.hartic.com/innerpage.php?pageid=53 to http://www.hartic.com/innerpage.php?pageid=53
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article refers to the "Mercuri method" as another term for VVPAT, her method does not appear to diverge from the described version so much as to require a separate article GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting that the proposal was withdrawn by the nominator with edit on the Mercuri method page with edit on: 02:23, 31 August 2016‎ Klbrain (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Mercuri method]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Voter-verified paper audit trail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140103152148/http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-221126-India-devises-flawless-ballot-mechanism to http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-221126-India-devises-flawless-ballot-mechanism
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130122082426/http://www.essvote.com/HTML/products/ivotronic_rtal.html to http://www.essvote.com/HTML/products/ivotronic_rtal.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello[ to whomsoever is reading this carefully], I've removed the odd placement of MOS:ALLEGED quotation-marks over the verb ‘verify’ as paraphrased from the study conducted by The Hindu® Centre for Politics and Public Policy in the sub-section "Common Problems" pertaining to the pragmatism of a VVPATs-based electoral-operation.
Regards. –Mohd.maaz864 (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the odd punctuation from "Common Problems" subsection