Talk:Florida Central Voter File

message: I am making some edits here aimed towards accuracy and NPOV. If you have issues with my edits, please discusss them with me here, prior to any wholsale reverts of my efforts. I am taking care to seek NPOV and accuracy. Merecat 19:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First - all those citation tags - all the sources are listed at the bottom in the "Resources" section.   And all the information is sourced. none of it is original research and it's all verifiable.  I'm looking at your other edits now. Kevin Baastalk 20:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.  Let me start by saying that since I've made a lot of contributions to this article, I feel I've had my hands on it too much, so I'm happy to see someone else come in after a long time and put their hands on it. Kevin Baastalk 21:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  The source link for this looked fishy to me. I may be wrong. Merecat 21:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Plain as day, that investigation was not about this topic. Including it is POV and implies that Ashcroft was investigating FL about the lists, which he was not. I still oppose inclusion of this para. Merecat 21:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The investigation was a general investigation, and after much political pressure built around the list, he finally relinquished and "investigated". In any case, one usually does not investigate, but in florida this year, for some reason it was apparently warranted. And it was a general investigate about how the election process went, and as such, included the list in scope. whether or not everything within the scope of the investigation was investigated or even looked at, that's a different question. Kevin Baastalk 21:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are greatly in error here. A few limited counties were investigated for their local voting process management procedures. That is a separate and distinct issue from the statewide voter file issue. It's not even a subset of it - it's entirely distinct and does not belong in this article. Merecat 22:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (sorry for the delay - I thought i had responded before) As I said before, it was the Attorney General's decision what the de facto scope of the study was, but the de jure scope of the investigation was the entire state.  In this particular case, it is interesting to note the relation between the two, because it is very different from what one would expect. Kevin Baastalk 16:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You still don't understand what i am saying.  Can you helo me communicate it to you? Kevin Baastalk 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: recent edits

message: *  Inordinate: Exceeding reasonable limits; immoderate. See Synonyms at excessive.  How about qualifying with something like "is generally considered to be", or, attribute it somehow.  It's clearly true, and it's a central issue.
::Any adjective used here which is not cited to a reliable source is POV and OR. It's not for you or me to say what is "ordinate" or "inordinate" here. Strong disagree. Merecat 21:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you missed the part where I said it's a central issue and that it should be attributed in some manner, in which case it is attributed pov, which is acceptable, and is not OR. Kevin Baastalk 21:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uncited, it's OR because it pushes a definative coloring of the entire issue. "Inordinate" is a theory in and of itself. That theory, being advanced from an editor's personal thinking, is original research. And it's POV to boot - in that it asserts that the deviation was "inordinate" rather than "ordinate". All large database files will have errors; the law of large numbers makes this clear. To state that the errors here are "inordinate", is to say that one has already established what an "ordinate" baseline acceptible problem rate would be. I see no information about that here. Therefore, any allegations of excess deviation smell of POV to me - the attempt to suggest that FL debacle was worrse than other debacles. Merecat 22:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The baseline is about 3% - that's the average according to a representation from Wisconsin state senate (i'd have to look for that source again).  They could have easily had 1%, and 15% is the upper limit when using the standard checks (acting reasonably).  The list was nowhere close.  But again, this should be attributed rather just being substantiated by other info in the article.  I'm not aware of any other debacles related to voter files.  I'm pretty sure this is the first. But if you can find some more, we could probably find somewhere to include it in the article. Kevin Baastalk 00:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: attribution. Kevin Baastalk 04:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If and when you get a reliable source for this, I'll look at it. If not, this must stay out. Merecat 21:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: per policy.  btw, that's not intentional. Kevin Baastalk 21:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: By saying that the terms were "favorable" to the NAACP only, it implies that the other party agreed to accept a punative settlement. This must be sourced to a legal expert who analyzed the settlement. If not, it's more NPOV to say that "all parties agreed". Merecat 21:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall seeing two sources on the NAACP suit.  I think at least one of them was a legal journal. they might be listed in resources.  if not, it'll be some work to find them again. Kevin Baastalk 21:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no need to muck with this unless pushing a point "all parties agreed" is enough. Merecat 22:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's interesting and important. see WP:NPOV. Kevin Baastalk 22:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you missed what i said earlier, or forgot it, or misconstrued it: "I recall seeing two sources on the NAACP suit.  I think at least one of them was a legal journal. they might be listed in resources.  if not, it'll be some work to find them again." Kevin Baastalk 00:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: split

message: *  - i don't see how this is so harsh.  everyone in politics, and the workplace, who's not at the bottom of the ladder, is a protegee of multiple people.  again, i now how i can get more sources for this.
::The word "protege" implies that there is a sense of being "beholden" to one's mentor. It implies a serious bond between the parties. In this context, it suggests that Harris may have been kowtowing to Jeb Bush. This is a highly inflammatory implication. Unless cited to a reliable source which documents a protoge relationship, this is 100% oppose in the strongest possible terms. Merecat 21:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i think what he meant to say is either that they used to work directly for him, or that he has himself promoted her, appointed her, or ordered her promotion. Kevin Baastalk 21:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if that's the case, a reliable source saying so is required. Merecat 22:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, i thought we already established that. Kevin Baastalk 00:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Wheeling and "dealing" are known to be terms which are used in a critical manner when shadiness is suggested. "Deal" in this context suggest shadiness. "Agreement" is NPOV and unless you have better reason that "deal" must be used, "agreement" makes the sentence NPOV. Merecat 21:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's not a big deal (no pun intended), so it's fine as is now and hopefully in the future someone will figure out how to make it more eloquent. Kevin Baastalk 21:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: split 2

message: Is the picture of "Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris" relevant?  (I'm thinking it is just the best picture anyone can think of to attach to this article.) RJFJR (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Florida Central Voter File. 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/20041013010245/http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com:80/2001-01-20/news_feature3.html to http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2001-01-20/news_feature3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Florida Central Voter File. 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/20080511151754/http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/index.html
*Added  tag to http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010430&s=lantigua
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040902042324/http://www.failureisimpossible.com/needtoknow/votehearings.htm to http://www.failureisimpossible.com/needtoknow/votehearings.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040916222841/http://www.house.gov/judiciary/6008.htm to http://www.house.gov/judiciary/6008.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040816163717/http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen04/news/inthenews/pr2001-6.htm to http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/sen04/news/inthenews/pr2001-6.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040427073427/http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-03/06schechter.cfm to http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-03/06schechter.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040915082009/http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=1 to http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041112130103/http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/9173917.htm to http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/9173917.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040902092834/http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html to http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041103175522/http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/08/integrity/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/08/integrity/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2001-01-20/news_feature3.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) 16:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :Aim was to trim excessive links but none were relevant to the article.
:There are eighteen entries, in two subsections, in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. 
*ELpoints #3) states: 
*LINKFARM states: 
*WP:ELMIN: . 
*WP:ELCITE: 
*WP:ELBURDEN:   --  Otr500 (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links