![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 April 2008. The result of the discussion was that this article's nomination was withdrawn, but five other articles were to be merged and redirected here. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Index
|
||||||||||||
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
President Obama said that electoral fraud does not happen in the United States; therefore, I move to remove this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.249.144 ( talk) 19:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Over the past week I've made some edits to trim down the lead paragraph, which I believed was overloaded. Initial edits pertained to removing what was basically a redundant copy of the table of contents, which appears to be have been accepted. A recent edit was to trim what I believed was unnecessary content for the lead paragraph. I thought it gave too much weight to a single controversy when the article's topic is about the multiple controversies during the election. I made an alternate edit which tries to include some of the removed material and relate it to the entire topic. -- Amwestover ( talk| contrib) 04:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that in a couple places in the article, technical terms are defined and explained. This reads like a term paper and doesn't appear encyclopedic. Linking style guidelines state that technical terms should be linked if there is an article. This is more valuable to the reader so that the article stays on topic and so that the readers can get more information about the technical term than we'd be able to provide inline in the article itself.
One particular example of this is the edit I made to the provisional ballots section, which appears to require some explanation. Instead of taking a whole paragraph to explain the term, a Wikilink is provided in the first sentence of the section so the reader may find out more about provisional ballots if needed or desired. -- Amwestover ( talk| contrib) 17:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
In the ES to this edit, Bonewah asked, about Rolling Stone, "is RS really a reliable source for anything?" The question has been taken up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rolling Stone, NME, Popmatters and Metal-Observer. Most of the discussion concerns the troublesome problem of identifying music genres, but there doesn't seem to be any serious dispute that Rolling Stone is a reliable source. One editor commented, "RS is further a good candidate for a RS for almost any subject; their reporters have won accolades time and again for deeper journalistic endeavors." JamesMLane t c 04:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I used to be a relatively active editor on this article since the 2004 election, but left in September of 2006 in utter disgust at the relentless attempts at POV pushing and deletion of this and related articles by certain editors that will remain nameless. Since then other dedicated editors have also left and (sadly and predictably) the content of this article has been decimated, and the related articles are being deleted to give the appearance that nothing much of consequence was controversial about the 2004 election.
I encourage any researchers looking for a broader perspective to look at earlier versions of this and related articles. For example, here is what this article looked like in September of 2006 (though even then much important history had been deleted from this article). Back then this article had 134 references, now there are 63. This article has gone from about 85,000 characters to about 32,000 (from about 8,000 to 4,000 words), and (from what I understand) the related articles are being deleted.
Of course, the deletionists and POV pushers will claim this has all been done in the name of being concise and removing unsourced or badly sourced statements. This has been their line all along. And, unfortunately, they have largely prevailed do to lack of opposition and due to support for their agenda from more powerful Wikipedians.
This has resulted in a narrow, mostly whitewashed version of what happened in 2004. I salute those of you still fighting to keep this article alive, but warn researchers that what you're getting here is not nearly the full story but the result of much revisionism. -- noosph e re 23:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I had not visited this article in some time and have some comments. First, is there a Wikipedia policy that "articles should not be too long?" Because while I respect the cost of electronic storage, it is NOT appropriate to use the reasons employed in limiting length of articles in paper encyclopedias. Writing styles accommodate long articles, if properly used.
Secondly, in some cases lists are seemingly the only method to present certain information. If 1,000 documented events occur, but are "seemingly" (or "arguably") unrelated, but this long LIST of events leads to CONTROVERSY by its sheer size, what exactly is the justification for scrubbing the list?
Mydogtrouble ( talk) 16:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Documented convictions for rigging recount in Ohio shall be included in the article soon.
Mydogtrouble ( talk) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems the discussion of the state of this article and the fate of its brethren comes up a few times a year, and we never get anywhere. A few people complain about how the old AFD was handled, and others respond by asking what quality material from those articles was lost, never receiving a terribly useful answer. James, above, points out that problematical articles should be improved, not removed, and to an extent he has a point, but there's more to it than that. First of all, these articles weren't problematic, they were downright terrible. Even many who wanted them kept agreed with that. Secondly, the redirects which resulted from the AFD were shortcuts to what was basically the same result as improvement. A step-by-step examination of the improvement process illustrates this:
So we end up with the same result whether we go with the improve model or the immediate redirect model. I am fully aware that some will take issue with a few conclusions drawn here, arguing that relevant, sourced information was removed. Meanwhile the rest of us still await any specifics of what this information is. A while back I took a crack at "improving" the Ohio article from its previous incarnation. You can see the result here, and I think it illustrates my point quite well. We have a short article, almost all of which is already included here. I am perfectly happy to see this article expanded to include whatever other quality information is out there, but it hasn't been forthcoming. I am glad at least Mydogtrouble has cited a specific incident, and if sourced I see no reason why this information should be excluded. However, it also may be that incident is more relevant to the Diebold article and the substantial controversy over those machines in general, not just in 2004. Since Kerry wasn't about to win North Carolina anyway, it isn't as relevant as the irregularities in Ohio, which could have swung the election.
I also think we have to keep in mind what is relevant and what is just standard errors. Any time you try to corral 100 million people into voting booths in a 12 hour period you get screw ups here and there. Some of the problems in Ohio and such are clearly relevant; 15 ballots going missing in Crapville West, Alabama is not. If this article starts becoming a coatrack on which to hang every single minor incident that may have occurred throughout the country we are probably going to have a problem. If we can have reliably sourced facts on substantial problems and irregularities added to the article I think things can run smoothly. - R. fiend ( talk) 14:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I did a little digging and, as far as North Carolina is concerned, i found this and this for starters. Based on what ive read, there is not enough here to warrant inclusion in this article, in my opinion. The reason for this is, as R. fiend stated above, that i don't want to see this article become a dumping ground for every little thing that went wrong in 2004. Frankly, we wouldn't be doing our readers any favors if we indiscriminately list everything that happened, no one would read it all and more important information would be lost in a sea of minutiae. Having said all that, I do think that the voting machine section could stand some beefing up, both in terms of voting machine concerns generally and Diebold specifically. On that note, id like to throw out this link to start us out. I strongly agree with R. fiend's sentiment above that Mydogtrouble's focus on the actual article is commendable, so lets take that useful energy and put it into making this article better. Bonewah ( talk) 19:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no mention here of Stephen Spoonamore, Mike Connell, and the associated computer election fraud. Perhaps someone who knows more about this matter could add to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.169.151 ( talk) 07:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps some of the following links could be added to the exit polling section.
Beyond Exit Poll Fundamentalism: Surveying the 2004 Election Debate
Controversies in Exit Polling: Implementing a Racially Stratified Homogenous Precinct Approach
non-archive.org copy of a link we have
nate silver, 538
Long Lines, Voting Machine Availability, and Turnout: The Case of Franklin County, Ohio in the 2004 Presidential Election
Does Voting Technology Affect Election Outcomes? Touch-screen Voting and the 2004 Presidential Election
Why use an open source e-voting system?
Voter Disenfranchisement and Policy toward Election Reforms
Voting technologies and residual ballots in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections
These are pulled from various deletion discussions and should be considered for inclusion (thanks,
Protonk), I havent had a chance to review them, and, in the case of the scholarly journals, a number of them require subscriptions or are behind a paywall, but still, better to have all these links in one place, then to have to hunt them down.
Bonewah (
talk) 00:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 01:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this article has no mention of the controversy surrounding the alleged rerouting of Ohio election results through the servers of SmarTech, the same company that hosted gwb43.com. For those not familiar with this, see this recent article in The Free Press, which mentions a recent court filing. Dotyoyo ( talk) 18:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Several of the citations have accusations which aren't actually supported by, well, anything other than accusations. What use does it do to repeat accusations which were investigated - or even in the citations - did not actually assert any wrongdoing upon the part of those named? 76.21.107.221 ( talk) 04:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
In the interest of honesty and objectivity, it's worth noting that ACORN was the one that brought the only verified, real instances of voter registration fraud by some of their employees to the attention of authorities. They were not "exposed". Those allegations that were made originally by outsiders turned out to be unfounded or outright fabricated when investigated by authorities. ACORN self-policed and there was little or no connection between partisanship and the fraud that occurred. That was not the case in any of the instances with Diebold or any of the GOP-connected registration, vote, and counting frauds. There is an attempt to show equivalency between ACORN, a non-partisan non-profit organization that had no systemic instances of partisan fraud, and what the evidence repeatedly showed was an organized and concerted effort to commit fraud from right-connected individuals and organizations during the 2004 election for the express purpose of manipulating election results. 71.65.115.103 ( talk) 21:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee are reviewing the discretionary sanctions topic areas with a view to remove overlapping authorisations, the proposed changes will affect this topic area. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Overlap of Sanctions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on 2004 United States election voting controversies. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 2004 United States election voting controversies. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 April 2008. The result of the discussion was that this article's nomination was withdrawn, but five other articles were to be merged and redirected here. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Index
|
||||||||||||
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
President Obama said that electoral fraud does not happen in the United States; therefore, I move to remove this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.249.144 ( talk) 19:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Over the past week I've made some edits to trim down the lead paragraph, which I believed was overloaded. Initial edits pertained to removing what was basically a redundant copy of the table of contents, which appears to be have been accepted. A recent edit was to trim what I believed was unnecessary content for the lead paragraph. I thought it gave too much weight to a single controversy when the article's topic is about the multiple controversies during the election. I made an alternate edit which tries to include some of the removed material and relate it to the entire topic. -- Amwestover ( talk| contrib) 04:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that in a couple places in the article, technical terms are defined and explained. This reads like a term paper and doesn't appear encyclopedic. Linking style guidelines state that technical terms should be linked if there is an article. This is more valuable to the reader so that the article stays on topic and so that the readers can get more information about the technical term than we'd be able to provide inline in the article itself.
One particular example of this is the edit I made to the provisional ballots section, which appears to require some explanation. Instead of taking a whole paragraph to explain the term, a Wikilink is provided in the first sentence of the section so the reader may find out more about provisional ballots if needed or desired. -- Amwestover ( talk| contrib) 17:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
In the ES to this edit, Bonewah asked, about Rolling Stone, "is RS really a reliable source for anything?" The question has been taken up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rolling Stone, NME, Popmatters and Metal-Observer. Most of the discussion concerns the troublesome problem of identifying music genres, but there doesn't seem to be any serious dispute that Rolling Stone is a reliable source. One editor commented, "RS is further a good candidate for a RS for almost any subject; their reporters have won accolades time and again for deeper journalistic endeavors." JamesMLane t c 04:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I used to be a relatively active editor on this article since the 2004 election, but left in September of 2006 in utter disgust at the relentless attempts at POV pushing and deletion of this and related articles by certain editors that will remain nameless. Since then other dedicated editors have also left and (sadly and predictably) the content of this article has been decimated, and the related articles are being deleted to give the appearance that nothing much of consequence was controversial about the 2004 election.
I encourage any researchers looking for a broader perspective to look at earlier versions of this and related articles. For example, here is what this article looked like in September of 2006 (though even then much important history had been deleted from this article). Back then this article had 134 references, now there are 63. This article has gone from about 85,000 characters to about 32,000 (from about 8,000 to 4,000 words), and (from what I understand) the related articles are being deleted.
Of course, the deletionists and POV pushers will claim this has all been done in the name of being concise and removing unsourced or badly sourced statements. This has been their line all along. And, unfortunately, they have largely prevailed do to lack of opposition and due to support for their agenda from more powerful Wikipedians.
This has resulted in a narrow, mostly whitewashed version of what happened in 2004. I salute those of you still fighting to keep this article alive, but warn researchers that what you're getting here is not nearly the full story but the result of much revisionism. -- noosph e re 23:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I had not visited this article in some time and have some comments. First, is there a Wikipedia policy that "articles should not be too long?" Because while I respect the cost of electronic storage, it is NOT appropriate to use the reasons employed in limiting length of articles in paper encyclopedias. Writing styles accommodate long articles, if properly used.
Secondly, in some cases lists are seemingly the only method to present certain information. If 1,000 documented events occur, but are "seemingly" (or "arguably") unrelated, but this long LIST of events leads to CONTROVERSY by its sheer size, what exactly is the justification for scrubbing the list?
Mydogtrouble ( talk) 16:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Documented convictions for rigging recount in Ohio shall be included in the article soon.
Mydogtrouble ( talk) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems the discussion of the state of this article and the fate of its brethren comes up a few times a year, and we never get anywhere. A few people complain about how the old AFD was handled, and others respond by asking what quality material from those articles was lost, never receiving a terribly useful answer. James, above, points out that problematical articles should be improved, not removed, and to an extent he has a point, but there's more to it than that. First of all, these articles weren't problematic, they were downright terrible. Even many who wanted them kept agreed with that. Secondly, the redirects which resulted from the AFD were shortcuts to what was basically the same result as improvement. A step-by-step examination of the improvement process illustrates this:
So we end up with the same result whether we go with the improve model or the immediate redirect model. I am fully aware that some will take issue with a few conclusions drawn here, arguing that relevant, sourced information was removed. Meanwhile the rest of us still await any specifics of what this information is. A while back I took a crack at "improving" the Ohio article from its previous incarnation. You can see the result here, and I think it illustrates my point quite well. We have a short article, almost all of which is already included here. I am perfectly happy to see this article expanded to include whatever other quality information is out there, but it hasn't been forthcoming. I am glad at least Mydogtrouble has cited a specific incident, and if sourced I see no reason why this information should be excluded. However, it also may be that incident is more relevant to the Diebold article and the substantial controversy over those machines in general, not just in 2004. Since Kerry wasn't about to win North Carolina anyway, it isn't as relevant as the irregularities in Ohio, which could have swung the election.
I also think we have to keep in mind what is relevant and what is just standard errors. Any time you try to corral 100 million people into voting booths in a 12 hour period you get screw ups here and there. Some of the problems in Ohio and such are clearly relevant; 15 ballots going missing in Crapville West, Alabama is not. If this article starts becoming a coatrack on which to hang every single minor incident that may have occurred throughout the country we are probably going to have a problem. If we can have reliably sourced facts on substantial problems and irregularities added to the article I think things can run smoothly. - R. fiend ( talk) 14:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I did a little digging and, as far as North Carolina is concerned, i found this and this for starters. Based on what ive read, there is not enough here to warrant inclusion in this article, in my opinion. The reason for this is, as R. fiend stated above, that i don't want to see this article become a dumping ground for every little thing that went wrong in 2004. Frankly, we wouldn't be doing our readers any favors if we indiscriminately list everything that happened, no one would read it all and more important information would be lost in a sea of minutiae. Having said all that, I do think that the voting machine section could stand some beefing up, both in terms of voting machine concerns generally and Diebold specifically. On that note, id like to throw out this link to start us out. I strongly agree with R. fiend's sentiment above that Mydogtrouble's focus on the actual article is commendable, so lets take that useful energy and put it into making this article better. Bonewah ( talk) 19:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no mention here of Stephen Spoonamore, Mike Connell, and the associated computer election fraud. Perhaps someone who knows more about this matter could add to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.169.151 ( talk) 07:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps some of the following links could be added to the exit polling section.
Beyond Exit Poll Fundamentalism: Surveying the 2004 Election Debate
Controversies in Exit Polling: Implementing a Racially Stratified Homogenous Precinct Approach
non-archive.org copy of a link we have
nate silver, 538
Long Lines, Voting Machine Availability, and Turnout: The Case of Franklin County, Ohio in the 2004 Presidential Election
Does Voting Technology Affect Election Outcomes? Touch-screen Voting and the 2004 Presidential Election
Why use an open source e-voting system?
Voter Disenfranchisement and Policy toward Election Reforms
Voting technologies and residual ballots in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections
These are pulled from various deletion discussions and should be considered for inclusion (thanks,
Protonk), I havent had a chance to review them, and, in the case of the scholarly journals, a number of them require subscriptions or are behind a paywall, but still, better to have all these links in one place, then to have to hunt them down.
Bonewah (
talk) 00:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 01:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this article has no mention of the controversy surrounding the alleged rerouting of Ohio election results through the servers of SmarTech, the same company that hosted gwb43.com. For those not familiar with this, see this recent article in The Free Press, which mentions a recent court filing. Dotyoyo ( talk) 18:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Several of the citations have accusations which aren't actually supported by, well, anything other than accusations. What use does it do to repeat accusations which were investigated - or even in the citations - did not actually assert any wrongdoing upon the part of those named? 76.21.107.221 ( talk) 04:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
In the interest of honesty and objectivity, it's worth noting that ACORN was the one that brought the only verified, real instances of voter registration fraud by some of their employees to the attention of authorities. They were not "exposed". Those allegations that were made originally by outsiders turned out to be unfounded or outright fabricated when investigated by authorities. ACORN self-policed and there was little or no connection between partisanship and the fraud that occurred. That was not the case in any of the instances with Diebold or any of the GOP-connected registration, vote, and counting frauds. There is an attempt to show equivalency between ACORN, a non-partisan non-profit organization that had no systemic instances of partisan fraud, and what the evidence repeatedly showed was an organized and concerted effort to commit fraud from right-connected individuals and organizations during the 2004 election for the express purpose of manipulating election results. 71.65.115.103 ( talk) 21:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee are reviewing the discretionary sanctions topic areas with a view to remove overlapping authorisations, the proposed changes will affect this topic area. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Overlap of Sanctions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on 2004 United States election voting controversies. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on 2004 United States election voting controversies. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)