This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Americans Elect article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is a registered political party. Americans Elect collects funds and uses it to promote its organization. It will probably spend this funding on its future candidate so as to win the general election. There is no reason why Americans Elect should be called anything but a political party.-- Drdak ( talk) 00:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Not only are they a political party, but they have apparently edited out my note alluding to the fact that their early website had a quote from an organization on whose board sat none other than David Koch. 71.179.183.170 ( talk) 01:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I removed language that said Americans Elect candidates will be certified by an “independent” committee. The committee that does the certification is the party’s Candidate Certification Committee, which according to the bylaws (section 5.4.2) is appointed by the party’s board of directors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.52.186 ( talk) 04:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
presumably such an individual, after selection by the AE board, would separate emself from whatever other party and declare eirself an AE party member or as having no party affiliation, something that SFAIK, were it an actual career stance of a candidate, would conflict with the whole similar stature to prior POTUSes thing. If it were not for the fact that it is taking on the role performed by a party, i.e. nomination and running a candidate in the presidential election, it could probably be called a PAC, NGO, political interest group, whatever. However they cross that line with their clear (if not completely disingenuous) statement of function which is why you can click thru and see a matching definition in the political party article . 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 01:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems a model of clarity ATM to me. Great work on the Funding § Replace the tag please with an identification of what is confusing so it can be worked. Also has high ratings, although not for completeness. Incompleteness and being confusing are different. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 10:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
i.e. between the elided direct object, and the implication that it would be they themselves, as Senator Obama was President Elect between his election and inauguration. Should be something source-able on this if the funding/interests could be traced. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 10:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Americans Elect states that they are a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that is funded by individual contributions.
Nonpartisan in the sense that the "delegates" are not ostensibly choosing Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians as their candidate, but on the other hand the organization is quite partisan in one sense, because legally they are seeking to become a political party with a candidate for President of the United States in 2012. How they have achieved that status in some states, and how they are seeking that status in the remaining states, will be a very interesting process to observe, given that many states have adopted a two-party system by law that makes it difficult to establish other parties, and also makes it fairly easy for the Democrats and Republicans to make trouble for any third party candidate, especially for statewide or national office seekers. I hope other editors will explore these issues and create links to other articles on related topics. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 12:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The opensecrets.org page cited as reference states that the information was current as of July 19, 2011 (prior to the date of the article, so the article can be presumed to be accurate), and reflects the April 2010 Arno donation as a "vendor refund" (which is not stated in the Wiki entry) and the $1.55 million (tendered in five unequal payments over April, May, July, August and September 2010) having been donated by Peter Ackerman of Tufts University (not Elliot Ackerman, as stated in the Wiki entry). PlaygroundGirl ( talk) 03:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)PlaygroundGirl, 8-23-11
Interestingly, the name Peter Ackerman is never mentioned in this article, however it appears to be an effort both initiated and funded by him. At the Americans Elect site, one finds only the name of his son, thirty-year old Eliot, an Iraq War hero, but looking at his father's bio, it seems very likely that he and not the son is the real instigator. Both this article and the Elect internet site leave out a lot more information than they provide.
In the past, many of us have made serious and dedicated attempts to elect an administration that we assumed would follow through with at least some of the promises that they made during their campaigns. Looking back and seeing our efforts a waste of our time and money, we have now given up all hope of seeing anything different in the near future. So, not surprisingly, one is inclined to look ever-more closely at anyone suggesting that they have an answer to the predicament that the American public finds itself in today.
Reading Peter Ackerman's bio I find that he is associated with the Cato Institute and he has the following to say at their site:
Gandydancer ( talk) 14:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
NEW INFO 9/6/11 Please read this page at AE http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/whos_behind_this to see the new controversy brewing. The general idea is: The board of advisors here include people like Peter Ackerman who is on the board of dir. of the Cato Institute. An extreme right wing group funded by , who else, the Koch bros. So look behind the curtain on this. The question asked here at AE "IS the drug war a success or failure? 90% answered a failure, therefore this site has a strong left wing leaning. Thus the candidate will be left leaning and take votes from the Dems. Therefore, this is attempt to split the left's vote and get a Republican to win. TrueAndroids ( talk) 18:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
>>The question asked here at AE "IS the drug war a success or failure? 90% answered a failure, therefore this site has a strong left wing leaning.>>
WHAT?! That's a wildly broad conclusion to draw from that result. Are you really unaware that most Libertarians and quite a few libertarian-leaning Republicans would agree that the so-called War on Drugs is a failure that is damaging America? And that these are precisely the kind of people you would expect to find interested in a project like Americans Elect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.65.26 ( talk) 05:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
It's listed as a political party in Nevada and presumably other states where it's on the ballot, See that that has been replaced by "organization", unclear by what agency or for what purpose, but I don't think it matters at this point. Lycurgus ( talk) 22:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is dismal, and the subject is significant. I've started editing it, and need help. To start, can someone give some reliable, recent third party articles or online videos that explain Americans Elect thoroughly? I can do that myself, but just to get the ball rolling here, lets start with that. If I have more questions from there, I'll ask them. Started the same discussion here [13]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NittyG ( talk • contribs) 06:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Consider one of American Elect's big backers: Lynn Forester de Rothschild, currently the largest non-institutional investor in The Economist magazine, also its largest "trust share" investor (according to the Economist Groups 2011 Annual Report), which grants her principal right to select its Editor. A huge Hillary Clinton supporter, financial and vocal, she never accepted Obama's nomination, supported McCain, and ridiculed Obama ever since. Note The Economist supported Obama, though quickly turned critical. Since 2010 de Rothschild has been a major Huntsman supporter, precisely the kind of candidate some hope American Elect would produce. Yet confusing comments suggest more than just policy drives her: she stated the Obama healthcare plan did not provide "what we should have — like the British have, which is a single-payer system" [www.salon.com/2011/08/20/lady_rothschild_2012], while she also said Obama's "hope is, and has always been, to turn the country into a nation that looks more like a European social democracy" [14]. I have no facts about her motivations, but such conflicting rhetoric from an extremely powerful behind-the-scenes influencer suggests some kind of grudge or personal animosity towards Obama, similar to Perot's animosity towards G.H.W. Bush.
Given major third-party US Presidential candidates, post World War II, correlate with the incumbent party presidential candidate's defeat (Wallace in 1968, Anderson in 1980, Perot in 1992, Nader in 2000), de Rothschild may consider it a strategy. --Brian Coyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 ( talk) 00:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Much of the press coverage of recent note on AE has been about their secrecy in donations and potential for a Hobson's choice in the candidate selection process. This coverage has not been reflected in the article, however. Any thoughts about how it might be worked in? -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 07:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm rather concerned about the use of a lawsuit to back up some of the claims in the article. Reading a court decision is non-trivial and I should think seeing it as being applicable to a particular case (and saying a particular thing) is really a professional interpretation for a lawyer, not something we can include in Wikipedia. Thoughts? -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 15:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
-- Jphorowitz ( talk) 22:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be academic at this point, but I don't see why court opinions cannot be cited. There's nothing in WP:RS that indicates otherwise. TeaDrinker's concern seems to be that you have to be a lawyer to interpret a court decision. Not true, lay people can and do cite and interpret court opinions all the time. WP doesn't give legal advice so there's no reason why we would have to be lawyers. WilliamKF's concern is that statements people make in court are not vetted by an independent editorial agency ("the very definition of a reliable source"). Of course people can say whatever they want in court, and those statements are not reliable sources. But what a court says is reliable precisely because the court is independent. If the court parrots an assertion made by a party without qualification then the court has accepted that assertion as true. Just as would a journalist. But what a court says is even more reliable because the statement is usually made under oath, and the opposing party gets the public opportunity to rebut the statement. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 18:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The 1 Percent President; Americans Elect’s hypothetical ‘centrist’ candidate wins plaudits from pundits from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting Extra!. 99.109.125.114 ( talk) 01:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I see that sources which refer to Unity08 are being used as if they refer to Americans Elect. For example, the Appeals Court decision on Unity08 is being used as if it referred to Americans Elect. [15] [16] But it's my understanding from reading the articles that they are legally separate. If so, we should avoid blurring the distinction and only use sources which talk about the subject of this article, Americans Elect. Will Beback talk 08:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed the reference to a certain political consulting firm being "controversial" as a violation of neutral point of view; see WP:LABEL. I also removed the reference to the AE team as being "diverse" because the sources provided for that sentence did not use that term and it appeared to be praise rather than a neutral comment. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Is the Association with Arno Political Consultants section necessary? The fact that there is an association with that group is irrelevant. 69.225.232.116 ( talk) 04:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to remove the neutrality notice on the article, now when AE has ended its role in the 2012 election it could stay there for ever because no one really care. I have tried to figure out what the problem is so to fix it and have a nice little article about AE, but I cant seem to find the problem. Could the once with the problem please state it here so we can get it done and go on with other things. Thanks a lot Jack Bornholm ( talk) 08:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe a case of:
Somebody thinks something might be wrong with this page. They can't be bothered to fix it, or even explain on the talk page. They are, however, happy to litter the place up with useless tags. They probably even think they are doing something useful. (June 2012) - It must be important, as it has been officially dated. Unfortunately, no one can deal with it, as nobody knows what the problem, if any, might be. |
Jack Bornholm ( talk) 09:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
While considerable efforts have been undertaken to keep this article current via minor updates, I would suggest that recent events (AE's cancellation of its online nominating convention, failure to nominate a candidate, resignation of most of its Board members, dissolution of its state committees, and -- importantly -- its recent 180 degree turn toward partisan political advertising in support of non-AE candidates such as Angus King's independent senate bid) really require a more-or-less thorough revision of this article. AE's past identity as an online nomination process is now really of only historical (i.e., not current) interest, yet the lion's share of the current article is still devoted to the details of that now non-existant process, and a less-than-careful reader could be forgiven for coming away with the impression that Americans Elect is either (i) still a political party, or (ii) defunct...neither of which is the case. I would propose that much of the old discussion regarding the minutia of the online nomination process should be significantly condensed and relocated in the "History" section, and that the body of the article should now focus more on AE's current incarnation as a...um...hmmm...err...other kind of entity (I guess a political action committee in function, if not yet in law?). As one who has been helping to maintain this article, and as an active student of Americans Elect, I would be happy to undertake such a revision, but I don't want to tackle it without the benefit of prior feedback from the community. Please discuss.-- AETransparency ( talk) 17:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Americans Elect. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Americans Elect article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is a registered political party. Americans Elect collects funds and uses it to promote its organization. It will probably spend this funding on its future candidate so as to win the general election. There is no reason why Americans Elect should be called anything but a political party.-- Drdak ( talk) 00:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Not only are they a political party, but they have apparently edited out my note alluding to the fact that their early website had a quote from an organization on whose board sat none other than David Koch. 71.179.183.170 ( talk) 01:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I removed language that said Americans Elect candidates will be certified by an “independent” committee. The committee that does the certification is the party’s Candidate Certification Committee, which according to the bylaws (section 5.4.2) is appointed by the party’s board of directors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.52.186 ( talk) 04:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
presumably such an individual, after selection by the AE board, would separate emself from whatever other party and declare eirself an AE party member or as having no party affiliation, something that SFAIK, were it an actual career stance of a candidate, would conflict with the whole similar stature to prior POTUSes thing. If it were not for the fact that it is taking on the role performed by a party, i.e. nomination and running a candidate in the presidential election, it could probably be called a PAC, NGO, political interest group, whatever. However they cross that line with their clear (if not completely disingenuous) statement of function which is why you can click thru and see a matching definition in the political party article . 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 01:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems a model of clarity ATM to me. Great work on the Funding § Replace the tag please with an identification of what is confusing so it can be worked. Also has high ratings, although not for completeness. Incompleteness and being confusing are different. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 10:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
i.e. between the elided direct object, and the implication that it would be they themselves, as Senator Obama was President Elect between his election and inauguration. Should be something source-able on this if the funding/interests could be traced. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 10:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Americans Elect states that they are a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that is funded by individual contributions.
Nonpartisan in the sense that the "delegates" are not ostensibly choosing Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians as their candidate, but on the other hand the organization is quite partisan in one sense, because legally they are seeking to become a political party with a candidate for President of the United States in 2012. How they have achieved that status in some states, and how they are seeking that status in the remaining states, will be a very interesting process to observe, given that many states have adopted a two-party system by law that makes it difficult to establish other parties, and also makes it fairly easy for the Democrats and Republicans to make trouble for any third party candidate, especially for statewide or national office seekers. I hope other editors will explore these issues and create links to other articles on related topics. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 12:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The opensecrets.org page cited as reference states that the information was current as of July 19, 2011 (prior to the date of the article, so the article can be presumed to be accurate), and reflects the April 2010 Arno donation as a "vendor refund" (which is not stated in the Wiki entry) and the $1.55 million (tendered in five unequal payments over April, May, July, August and September 2010) having been donated by Peter Ackerman of Tufts University (not Elliot Ackerman, as stated in the Wiki entry). PlaygroundGirl ( talk) 03:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)PlaygroundGirl, 8-23-11
Interestingly, the name Peter Ackerman is never mentioned in this article, however it appears to be an effort both initiated and funded by him. At the Americans Elect site, one finds only the name of his son, thirty-year old Eliot, an Iraq War hero, but looking at his father's bio, it seems very likely that he and not the son is the real instigator. Both this article and the Elect internet site leave out a lot more information than they provide.
In the past, many of us have made serious and dedicated attempts to elect an administration that we assumed would follow through with at least some of the promises that they made during their campaigns. Looking back and seeing our efforts a waste of our time and money, we have now given up all hope of seeing anything different in the near future. So, not surprisingly, one is inclined to look ever-more closely at anyone suggesting that they have an answer to the predicament that the American public finds itself in today.
Reading Peter Ackerman's bio I find that he is associated with the Cato Institute and he has the following to say at their site:
Gandydancer ( talk) 14:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
NEW INFO 9/6/11 Please read this page at AE http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/whos_behind_this to see the new controversy brewing. The general idea is: The board of advisors here include people like Peter Ackerman who is on the board of dir. of the Cato Institute. An extreme right wing group funded by , who else, the Koch bros. So look behind the curtain on this. The question asked here at AE "IS the drug war a success or failure? 90% answered a failure, therefore this site has a strong left wing leaning. Thus the candidate will be left leaning and take votes from the Dems. Therefore, this is attempt to split the left's vote and get a Republican to win. TrueAndroids ( talk) 18:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
>>The question asked here at AE "IS the drug war a success or failure? 90% answered a failure, therefore this site has a strong left wing leaning.>>
WHAT?! That's a wildly broad conclusion to draw from that result. Are you really unaware that most Libertarians and quite a few libertarian-leaning Republicans would agree that the so-called War on Drugs is a failure that is damaging America? And that these are precisely the kind of people you would expect to find interested in a project like Americans Elect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.65.26 ( talk) 05:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
It's listed as a political party in Nevada and presumably other states where it's on the ballot, See that that has been replaced by "organization", unclear by what agency or for what purpose, but I don't think it matters at this point. Lycurgus ( talk) 22:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is dismal, and the subject is significant. I've started editing it, and need help. To start, can someone give some reliable, recent third party articles or online videos that explain Americans Elect thoroughly? I can do that myself, but just to get the ball rolling here, lets start with that. If I have more questions from there, I'll ask them. Started the same discussion here [13]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NittyG ( talk • contribs) 06:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Consider one of American Elect's big backers: Lynn Forester de Rothschild, currently the largest non-institutional investor in The Economist magazine, also its largest "trust share" investor (according to the Economist Groups 2011 Annual Report), which grants her principal right to select its Editor. A huge Hillary Clinton supporter, financial and vocal, she never accepted Obama's nomination, supported McCain, and ridiculed Obama ever since. Note The Economist supported Obama, though quickly turned critical. Since 2010 de Rothschild has been a major Huntsman supporter, precisely the kind of candidate some hope American Elect would produce. Yet confusing comments suggest more than just policy drives her: she stated the Obama healthcare plan did not provide "what we should have — like the British have, which is a single-payer system" [www.salon.com/2011/08/20/lady_rothschild_2012], while she also said Obama's "hope is, and has always been, to turn the country into a nation that looks more like a European social democracy" [14]. I have no facts about her motivations, but such conflicting rhetoric from an extremely powerful behind-the-scenes influencer suggests some kind of grudge or personal animosity towards Obama, similar to Perot's animosity towards G.H.W. Bush.
Given major third-party US Presidential candidates, post World War II, correlate with the incumbent party presidential candidate's defeat (Wallace in 1968, Anderson in 1980, Perot in 1992, Nader in 2000), de Rothschild may consider it a strategy. --Brian Coyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 ( talk) 00:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Much of the press coverage of recent note on AE has been about their secrecy in donations and potential for a Hobson's choice in the candidate selection process. This coverage has not been reflected in the article, however. Any thoughts about how it might be worked in? -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 07:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm rather concerned about the use of a lawsuit to back up some of the claims in the article. Reading a court decision is non-trivial and I should think seeing it as being applicable to a particular case (and saying a particular thing) is really a professional interpretation for a lawyer, not something we can include in Wikipedia. Thoughts? -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 15:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
-- Jphorowitz ( talk) 22:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be academic at this point, but I don't see why court opinions cannot be cited. There's nothing in WP:RS that indicates otherwise. TeaDrinker's concern seems to be that you have to be a lawyer to interpret a court decision. Not true, lay people can and do cite and interpret court opinions all the time. WP doesn't give legal advice so there's no reason why we would have to be lawyers. WilliamKF's concern is that statements people make in court are not vetted by an independent editorial agency ("the very definition of a reliable source"). Of course people can say whatever they want in court, and those statements are not reliable sources. But what a court says is reliable precisely because the court is independent. If the court parrots an assertion made by a party without qualification then the court has accepted that assertion as true. Just as would a journalist. But what a court says is even more reliable because the statement is usually made under oath, and the opposing party gets the public opportunity to rebut the statement. -- Nstrauss ( talk) 18:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The 1 Percent President; Americans Elect’s hypothetical ‘centrist’ candidate wins plaudits from pundits from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting Extra!. 99.109.125.114 ( talk) 01:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I see that sources which refer to Unity08 are being used as if they refer to Americans Elect. For example, the Appeals Court decision on Unity08 is being used as if it referred to Americans Elect. [15] [16] But it's my understanding from reading the articles that they are legally separate. If so, we should avoid blurring the distinction and only use sources which talk about the subject of this article, Americans Elect. Will Beback talk 08:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed the reference to a certain political consulting firm being "controversial" as a violation of neutral point of view; see WP:LABEL. I also removed the reference to the AE team as being "diverse" because the sources provided for that sentence did not use that term and it appeared to be praise rather than a neutral comment. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Is the Association with Arno Political Consultants section necessary? The fact that there is an association with that group is irrelevant. 69.225.232.116 ( talk) 04:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to remove the neutrality notice on the article, now when AE has ended its role in the 2012 election it could stay there for ever because no one really care. I have tried to figure out what the problem is so to fix it and have a nice little article about AE, but I cant seem to find the problem. Could the once with the problem please state it here so we can get it done and go on with other things. Thanks a lot Jack Bornholm ( talk) 08:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe a case of:
Somebody thinks something might be wrong with this page. They can't be bothered to fix it, or even explain on the talk page. They are, however, happy to litter the place up with useless tags. They probably even think they are doing something useful. (June 2012) - It must be important, as it has been officially dated. Unfortunately, no one can deal with it, as nobody knows what the problem, if any, might be. |
Jack Bornholm ( talk) 09:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
While considerable efforts have been undertaken to keep this article current via minor updates, I would suggest that recent events (AE's cancellation of its online nominating convention, failure to nominate a candidate, resignation of most of its Board members, dissolution of its state committees, and -- importantly -- its recent 180 degree turn toward partisan political advertising in support of non-AE candidates such as Angus King's independent senate bid) really require a more-or-less thorough revision of this article. AE's past identity as an online nomination process is now really of only historical (i.e., not current) interest, yet the lion's share of the current article is still devoted to the details of that now non-existant process, and a less-than-careful reader could be forgiven for coming away with the impression that Americans Elect is either (i) still a political party, or (ii) defunct...neither of which is the case. I would propose that much of the old discussion regarding the minutia of the online nomination process should be significantly condensed and relocated in the "History" section, and that the body of the article should now focus more on AE's current incarnation as a...um...hmmm...err...other kind of entity (I guess a political action committee in function, if not yet in law?). As one who has been helping to maintain this article, and as an active student of Americans Elect, I would be happy to undertake such a revision, but I don't want to tackle it without the benefit of prior feedback from the community. Please discuss.-- AETransparency ( talk) 17:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Americans Elect. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)