This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
One editor keeps trying to remove references and accounts about the Arizona election. Indeed, there are thousands of references to this election on google, and most of the key facts are not in dispute.
One editor keeps trying to "wipe it out" of Wikipedia, making the excuse that since the Arizona Democratic Primary in March of 2000, was financed by the Democratic Party (as opposed to using tax payer funds), and administered by a contractor (as opposed to government employees), that the election was thus a "Private" election, and thus irrelevant. However, these facts are not in dispute: 1. The election was binding. 2. The election was lawful, and was upheld in the courts despite at least one lawsuit trying to stop it. 3. The election was extremely scrutinzed, as evidenced by the massive media coverage, and professional analysis, which is cited in the references and obvious from google. 4. Voter turnout increased by a factor. 5. There were no documented security breaches. Certainly internet voting will be controversial for some time. It certainly offers the potential to materially increase voter participation, and fundamentally alter the power structure of our country, and to dislocate the economic interests of many. Nonetheless, one cannot deny that internet voting does exist, and that something happened in Arizona in March of 2000 that attracted tens of thousands of television and newspaper accounts around the world at that time. Those who challenge facts about the election, should feel free to point out that the election was financed by the democrats themselves, and administered by a contractor, but simply calling it a "Private Election" is fundamentally misleading to the public, as office for which this binding election was for was President of the United States, clearly a public office. -- Kops2222 ( talk) 02:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I fixed a bunch of the source formatting. I'll do more when I have time.
Electiontechnology ( talk) 21:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Microsoft taking an equity stake in Proginet in 1996 is noted in numerous sources. Novell's equity stake in 1994 is noted in the securities commissions filings The scalable systems comment is based upon two references, but even in the Microsoft Reference, Microsoft selected Mohen as the main speaker regarding scalable systems at their September 2000 announcement that Windows 2000 DataCenter had broken the previous record for highest ever TPS Benchmark for scalable systems. The transcripst of that speech are referenced from the Microsoft web site. A joint Microsoft election.com simulation was used to show the record being broken, and was demonstared in front of several thousand newspaper reporters from around the world. (I was there and saw it). Other scalability references related to XCOM. The nomination was for president of the United States, and the public office is taken right out of the memordandum written by Justice Rosenblatt. Will get to more when I have time Kops2222 ( talk) 22:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)kops2222
Most of the press articles refer to Mohen as Chairman of Proginet, not CTO. We should communicate directly on the "Public" Versus "Private" classification, as Wiki is tedious for that. I know that this is sacrosanct for you, and I think we should somehow form a group of non-involved persons to mediate that. Certainly, this was an issue in Federal Court and was adjudicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kops2222 ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I have added specific references from the Securities and Exchange commission web site showing history of Mohen as CEO of Proginet, not only CTO. The public references to XCOM show at least 11 operating systems, although they also note that some of them are plural, as in multiple versions of Windows and Unix, so by implications that is clearly at least 12. Notetheless, I will look for more sources. I have also changed the comment about scalable systems to noting that Mohen was a featured speaker at Microsoft Scalability day, in 2000. By the way, how would you know if Mohen is an expert in scalable systems? Well, I have a hunch we will be updating numerous election web sites together over the next few years. Kops2222 ( talk) 23:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)kops2222 ElectionTalk, you have not cited any sources that justify your reclassification of the 2000 Arizona Democratic Presidential Primary as a private versus public election, and you have repeatidly removed references to in as a public election, in spite of dozens of citations that I have added in support of it as a public election. One of my citizations is the United States District Court which actually adjudicated the issue that it was indeed a public election. You keep alteriung the story without any citizations to support your position, and ignore many that contradict it. Furthermore, to even suggest that a presidential primary is not for public office is preposterous. In the future, do not keep making these edits without any support Kops2222 ( talk) 01:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)kops2222
Wikipedia has a manual of style, WP:MOS. I've noticed two types of formatting that are not in accordance with the MOS. Section headings should be in sentence case, not in title case. So, for example, it should be "Ongoing debate", not "Ongoing Debate". Second, citations should follow the punctuation, like this: "test. [1]", not like this: "test [2]." Will Beback talk 22:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I checked the linked source and haven't found any mention of "Niall". Is this the correct link? Further, I'm not sure that a primary source is proper for this. If it's significant then a secondary source will have reported it. Will Beback talk 23:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, the Niall of Nine hostages reference is now very specific to the exact Mohen yDNA mapping, including the exact chromsome map. Note that in order to verify the facts, you might have to register with the GENEBASE web site, and manually compare the markers to that of Niall. (there is only one deviation in 1500 years which is a match). You can also run a program to compare them through genebase, and I did this once, but it is work. If you want to edit the text to indicate that there is only a 99% chance of a match or something like that I have no objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kops2222 ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
A lot of this looks like random articles listed as sources with no particular rhyme or reason.
Electiontechnology ( talk) 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced content is being removed. Randomly adding references that discuss the subject but don't support referenced content are getting out of hand.
Electiontechnology ( talk) 20:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Electiontechnology ( talk) 07:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Much of the material in the article appears more germain to Election.com than to this biography. For example, here's an entire section that barely mentions the subject:
The material in this article should focus on the subject, not on the details of a product he worked on. Perhaps we should split out that material into an article onthe company? Will Beback talk 21:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Recent edits on SpiralFrog introduced were either not sourced, poorly sourced, and inaccurate. A edit was made stating the launch of SpiralFrog was delayed PRIMARYILY for lack of funding; that is clearly not supported by, and is contradicted by, the enormous media record. Press accounts show that web site software was not ready for even beta until at least June 2007. While Kent excited Spiralfrog in late 2006, the press accounts show that none of the technical or development team left at that time. Clearly the software was not finished, and that is what media accounts support. Further, the music publishing licenses had not been obtained either, or not enough of them, and most major publishing licenses were not announced until around September 1, 2007. There is no support whatsoever to lack of funding be the primary reason for the delay, nor any reason for the delay at all, except by inference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.204.173 ( talk) 22:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Joe Mohen. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
One editor keeps trying to remove references and accounts about the Arizona election. Indeed, there are thousands of references to this election on google, and most of the key facts are not in dispute.
One editor keeps trying to "wipe it out" of Wikipedia, making the excuse that since the Arizona Democratic Primary in March of 2000, was financed by the Democratic Party (as opposed to using tax payer funds), and administered by a contractor (as opposed to government employees), that the election was thus a "Private" election, and thus irrelevant. However, these facts are not in dispute: 1. The election was binding. 2. The election was lawful, and was upheld in the courts despite at least one lawsuit trying to stop it. 3. The election was extremely scrutinzed, as evidenced by the massive media coverage, and professional analysis, which is cited in the references and obvious from google. 4. Voter turnout increased by a factor. 5. There were no documented security breaches. Certainly internet voting will be controversial for some time. It certainly offers the potential to materially increase voter participation, and fundamentally alter the power structure of our country, and to dislocate the economic interests of many. Nonetheless, one cannot deny that internet voting does exist, and that something happened in Arizona in March of 2000 that attracted tens of thousands of television and newspaper accounts around the world at that time. Those who challenge facts about the election, should feel free to point out that the election was financed by the democrats themselves, and administered by a contractor, but simply calling it a "Private Election" is fundamentally misleading to the public, as office for which this binding election was for was President of the United States, clearly a public office. -- Kops2222 ( talk) 02:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I fixed a bunch of the source formatting. I'll do more when I have time.
Electiontechnology ( talk) 21:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Microsoft taking an equity stake in Proginet in 1996 is noted in numerous sources. Novell's equity stake in 1994 is noted in the securities commissions filings The scalable systems comment is based upon two references, but even in the Microsoft Reference, Microsoft selected Mohen as the main speaker regarding scalable systems at their September 2000 announcement that Windows 2000 DataCenter had broken the previous record for highest ever TPS Benchmark for scalable systems. The transcripst of that speech are referenced from the Microsoft web site. A joint Microsoft election.com simulation was used to show the record being broken, and was demonstared in front of several thousand newspaper reporters from around the world. (I was there and saw it). Other scalability references related to XCOM. The nomination was for president of the United States, and the public office is taken right out of the memordandum written by Justice Rosenblatt. Will get to more when I have time Kops2222 ( talk) 22:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)kops2222
Most of the press articles refer to Mohen as Chairman of Proginet, not CTO. We should communicate directly on the "Public" Versus "Private" classification, as Wiki is tedious for that. I know that this is sacrosanct for you, and I think we should somehow form a group of non-involved persons to mediate that. Certainly, this was an issue in Federal Court and was adjudicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kops2222 ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I have added specific references from the Securities and Exchange commission web site showing history of Mohen as CEO of Proginet, not only CTO. The public references to XCOM show at least 11 operating systems, although they also note that some of them are plural, as in multiple versions of Windows and Unix, so by implications that is clearly at least 12. Notetheless, I will look for more sources. I have also changed the comment about scalable systems to noting that Mohen was a featured speaker at Microsoft Scalability day, in 2000. By the way, how would you know if Mohen is an expert in scalable systems? Well, I have a hunch we will be updating numerous election web sites together over the next few years. Kops2222 ( talk) 23:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)kops2222 ElectionTalk, you have not cited any sources that justify your reclassification of the 2000 Arizona Democratic Presidential Primary as a private versus public election, and you have repeatidly removed references to in as a public election, in spite of dozens of citations that I have added in support of it as a public election. One of my citizations is the United States District Court which actually adjudicated the issue that it was indeed a public election. You keep alteriung the story without any citizations to support your position, and ignore many that contradict it. Furthermore, to even suggest that a presidential primary is not for public office is preposterous. In the future, do not keep making these edits without any support Kops2222 ( talk) 01:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)kops2222
Wikipedia has a manual of style, WP:MOS. I've noticed two types of formatting that are not in accordance with the MOS. Section headings should be in sentence case, not in title case. So, for example, it should be "Ongoing debate", not "Ongoing Debate". Second, citations should follow the punctuation, like this: "test. [1]", not like this: "test [2]." Will Beback talk 22:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I checked the linked source and haven't found any mention of "Niall". Is this the correct link? Further, I'm not sure that a primary source is proper for this. If it's significant then a secondary source will have reported it. Will Beback talk 23:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way, the Niall of Nine hostages reference is now very specific to the exact Mohen yDNA mapping, including the exact chromsome map. Note that in order to verify the facts, you might have to register with the GENEBASE web site, and manually compare the markers to that of Niall. (there is only one deviation in 1500 years which is a match). You can also run a program to compare them through genebase, and I did this once, but it is work. If you want to edit the text to indicate that there is only a 99% chance of a match or something like that I have no objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kops2222 ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
A lot of this looks like random articles listed as sources with no particular rhyme or reason.
Electiontechnology ( talk) 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced content is being removed. Randomly adding references that discuss the subject but don't support referenced content are getting out of hand.
Electiontechnology ( talk) 20:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Electiontechnology ( talk) 07:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Much of the material in the article appears more germain to Election.com than to this biography. For example, here's an entire section that barely mentions the subject:
The material in this article should focus on the subject, not on the details of a product he worked on. Perhaps we should split out that material into an article onthe company? Will Beback talk 21:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Recent edits on SpiralFrog introduced were either not sourced, poorly sourced, and inaccurate. A edit was made stating the launch of SpiralFrog was delayed PRIMARYILY for lack of funding; that is clearly not supported by, and is contradicted by, the enormous media record. Press accounts show that web site software was not ready for even beta until at least June 2007. While Kent excited Spiralfrog in late 2006, the press accounts show that none of the technical or development team left at that time. Clearly the software was not finished, and that is what media accounts support. Further, the music publishing licenses had not been obtained either, or not enough of them, and most major publishing licenses were not announced until around September 1, 2007. There is no support whatsoever to lack of funding be the primary reason for the delay, nor any reason for the delay at all, except by inference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.204.173 ( talk) 22:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Joe Mohen. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)