User talk:Electiontechnology/archive

Electoral Fraud

i try to find english references but it's not always possible, e.g. no english spoken newspaper would write about some problems in a municipal election in a small dutch town. hmmm, maybe i can find some english blog-entry describing it and leave the dutch newspaper there for seriousness. --Taintain 19:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i put now all infos i could understand from the dutch in there , explains it quite well. i also put the elderly lady in front because that explains quicker what's meant with "social engineering" if somebody doesn't know the term. --Taintain 20:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's a strong indicator but no evidence. and a newspaper poll is no evidence either. i guess the police will ask the voters, that should solve the case someday. --Taintain 20:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

I've responded to your question on my talk page. Feel free to remove this notice once you've seen it. Oliphaunt 18:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch SDU votingmachines

the "Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet" folks never had a SDU-machine for testing, as far as i know it was the dutch secret service or something similar which checked both nedap and SDU machines for emmissions and found the SDU ones really bad. http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/80302 http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/ned61101 http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/31/dutch-pull-10-of-their-voting-machines-more-to-come/ --Taintain 17:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, don't know about CRTs --Taintain 22:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

I posted a new proposal for merging Template:Voting and Template:Electoral systems and would appreciate your input on the talk page.--Old Hoss 00:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ballot pics

not sure how the editing/reversion of the pics in the ballot article got fumbled up, but I'm happy with the way you fixed it. In case you were wondering. Gzuckier 15:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused user

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to DRE voting machine. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. This includes many of your account's edit history especially deleting of pages and criticisms from electoral process articles and companies or I will refer you to an admin. -Kain Nihil 14:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be pretty confused here. You seem to have reverted your own changes to the article DRE voting machine. Obviously you were mistaken. Please be more careful when threatening people with reckless claims of vandalism. --Electiontechnology 15:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologies for that incorrect revert, however, upon seeing your history such as your edit to Voting "Some people{{Weasel-name} argue that votes…..voting systems voters voters may have the ability to verify ballots are cast as recorded, but are still unable to follow" and upon your deletion of many legitimate criticisms having to do with voting I felt that many of your edits were motivated. I did not review that specific redirect well enough however I am wondering why your account only edits elections and references to criticisms. I apologize for that reckless revert I did to DRE however many of the other reverts I have done I believe are legitimate. Such as your recent edit to a referenced Diebold article claming that "removed contest for subsidiary elections company" I believe was not warranted. I also recognize that many of your edits are of good quality and make sense but I am concerned about your particular perspective when dealing with the control over election articles. And I am not confused. -Kain Nihil 03:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DES/PES name change

In articles about historic events, I don't think we should be saying that PES did something, since it didn't exist. It was DES, which later chnaged its name, that did things. Otherwise we're re-writing history. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

Thanks for experimenting with the page Elections in Brazil on Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Dali-Llama 07:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that--I thought you were spamming for a competitor of Diebold.--Dali-Llama 07:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. Just fixing some wikilinks and trying to attribute the new company name. --Electiontechnology 02:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

You have tagged a number of pages that I have edited, asking for more references and more links in WP. The pages, however, do have a reasonable number of references and links in WP, when compared with other WP articles. Most of the pages you targeted for changes have no direct relevance to elections. Can you please clarify your intent with such a wide negative sweep outside the area of your interest, and also clarify what you believe to be reasonable in each case for your request for changes/edits? It will also be more helpful if you please refrain from using the edit line as a "mini-comment" on your edit -- instead, please discuss the proposed changes on the article's talk page before tagging the article. You will have a lot more space to comment and we can really have a dialogue to clarify your thoughts. Otherwise, your perhaps useful comments look more like broad vandalism than help. Thank you. Edgerck (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I really can't be certain what you are referring to as you have not provided any details of any article. I assure you none of my actions have been negative or for that matter wide. I am not certain why you would think that improving WP is outside the area of my interest. I think it would be useful for you to have a better understanding of vandalism before making implied accusations. Also it would be helpful to reference the entries you are referring to in your complaint. If you are referring to Safevote, ZSENTRY, Zmail, Network Manifold Associates and Einar Stefferud each edit had an associated comment (I assume that is the "mini-comment" you are referring to) which I hope you understand I will not refrain from using to explain an edit. The tags were and are glaringly necessary and self explanatory. First, as the notability tags suggest, please refer to the Wikipedia notability guidelines, second the orphan tags are also necessary, contrary to your claim that the articles "have a reasonable number of references and links in WP, when compared with other WP articles." Einar Stefferud has no articles linking to it. Network Manifold Associates has one link (and one from a disambiguation page). The others have a maximum of 2 links (from each other). Further, Safevote has a single reference you authored. I think that fully qualifies for needing additional references.

In general I think you have missed the purpose of the tags. They are not to negatively impact, but to alert others in assisting with improving the article. No judgment was intended towards the content of your article, notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles. I hope that clears things up for you, but all this information could also have been gathered from reading the tags. --Electiontechnology (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your reply was a good clarification. Those articles you tagged are recent articles, so "perfection" might be a while away. Further, as discussed elsewhere in WP, articles on businesses should be short and not be extended to (or confused with) a commercial piece. An article on First Virtual and other articles on the Internet early days and pioneers are also expected independently from other editors, as we just now begin to see the Internet historically, so links and references should come in as a function of time. If you just google "Stefferud RFC" for example, you will see that we still have a lot of work to do to summarize that period in WP and properly provide a context for the Internet "big bang" events. Edgerck (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Hasen

Hi. I see you placed a "hangon" tag on Richard L. Hasen. Can you explain why at Talk:Richard L. Hasen? It certainly looks like a direct copy of his bio. regards. -- Whpq (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replied, but the zealousness of the speedy deletion was too fast for me... Electiontechnology (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An admin could restore it if there's something that you want to salvage but considering it was copied from his bio, the article would probably best written from scratch using sources. -- Whpq (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we cannot restore it, but you could easily and properly rewrite it, as suggested at the deletion review/.DGG (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a new version as a stub. I've not slapped any references in yet, but feel free to do some fact-finding and expand the stub. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diebold & BBV

Leaving Black Box Voting is the "Also See" box at the Diebold page is not vandalism. It allows people to also see other points of view. I plan on switching back everyday because it is not vandalism. Vandalism would be what your doing to my Also See link. Vandalism would be writing one-sided bias information without citing the creditable source of the information. What I'm doing is nothing close to vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manufacturedthoughts (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Conflict of Interest?

Do you work for election technology.com [1], User:Electiontechnology? Or for that matter any company that has to due with elections? Seph Peterson (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No COI here. See your talk page. --Electiontechnology (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying you work for an election R&D company that might push certain technologies? (like an indirect supplier of and for the distributors) Of course your pretty informed on the topic so your edits have a level of needed expertise; however, could you be pushing certain technologies your organization researches or perhaps you prefer? Seph Peterson (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting interpretation of my words. The company I work for is not an indirect supplier / distributor. They offer services to private companies who have no relation to public elections or election vendors. I'm not sure how "pushing" technologies they research would be any kind of a benefit, but I assure you that's not my agenda. Regardless, I edit WP in my personal capacity, in no way related to my professional life. If you take a look at my edit history, you'll see that I have a great respect for WP policy including (NPOV) and at any point where I thought my personal beliefs could have any influence on edits, or there has been any dispute over edits, I've made every effort to reach out to users who have a different opinions than I. I appreciate anyone with an interest in protecting the integrity of WP, though may I ask since you appear to be a very new user (or choosing a new account), what brought about the sudden concerns? Further, might I ask what you do? --Electiontechnology (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Electionpeople

Hi, what is Template:Electionpeople about exactly? One its talk page you mention that "the template incorporates an international group of election professionals". Is this a group that has organized itself under the name "Election People"? If not, what are the criteria for being listed on the template? Do you have sources listing these people as apparently the "most important" (NPOV?) people in this area? . I'm not against this template per se, but similar questions have already been raised on Template talk:Electionpeople, and if the intent of this template and criteria for inclusion on it cannot be cannot be clarified and formulated in a clear, unambiguous and non-NPOV way, I will nominate it for deletion. – gpvos (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ad links

sure...sorry I didn't know...won't add again...I was wondering why it disappears... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Behdadd (talk • contribs) 08:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting by expat US citizens

You and I had an exchange about this here, relating to the Voting rights in the United States article, and those rights as they are available in actual practice to expatriated US citizens such as myself. I'm a US citizen expat resident of the Philippines with a last-previous US residence in Washington State and a voting record in Washington State. As we discussed, I registered to vote as an absentee in Washington State. Based on the voting materials which I just received today, much as I would like to vote in this Presidential election I am going to have to pass on doing that out of fear of possible felony charges which might result in fine and/or imprisonment.

The absentee voting material which I received from Washington State included a mailing envelope with an "Oath of Voter" on the back which reads as follows:

I do solemnly swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury that:
I am a citizen of the United States;

I am a legal resident of the state of Washington;

I will be at least 18 years old on or before election day;

I am not presently denied my voting rights as a result of being convicted of a felony;

I have not been judicially declared mentally incompetent;

I have not already voted in this election; and

I understand that tit is illegal to cast a ballot or sign a ballot or sign a ballot envelope on behalf of another voter.

Attempting to vote when not qualified, attempting to vote more than once,or falsely signing this oath is a felony punishable by a maximum imprisonment of five years, a maximum fine of $10,000, or both.

I have no problem or uncertainty about any of that except that in order to swear that "I am a legal resident of the state of Washington", I need to know the residency requirements of the state of Washington. A bit of googling around led me to Article VI (Elections and Election Rights), Section 1 (Qualifications of Electors) of the Washington State Constitution on the Washington State Legislature website. The relevant portion of this says:

SECTION 1 QUALIFICATIONS OF ELECTORS. All persons of the age of eighteen years or over who are citizens of the United States and who have lived in the state, county, and precinct thirty days immediately preceding the election at which they offer to vote, except those disqualified by Article VI, section 3 of this Constitution, shall be entitled to vote at all elections. [AMENDMENT 63, 1974 Senate Joint Resolution No. 143, p 807. Approved November 5, 1974.]

Amendment 5 (1910) -- Art. 6 Section 1 QUALIFICATIONS OF ELECTORS -- All persons of the age of twenty-one years or over, possessing the following qualifications, shall be entitled to vote at all elections: They shall be citizens of the United States; they shall have lived in the state one year, and in the county ninety days, and in the city, town, ward or precinct thirty days immediately preceding the election at which they offer to vote; they shall be able to read and speak the English language: Provided, That Indians not taxed shall never be allowed the elective franchise: And further provided, That this amendment shall not affect the rights of franchise of any person who is now a qualified elector of this state. The legislative authority shall enact laws defining the manner of ascertaining the qualifications of voters as to their ability to read and speak the English language, and providing for punishment of persons voting or registering in violation of the provision of this section. There shall be no denial of the elective franchise at any election on account of sex. [AMENDMENT 5, 1909 p 26 Section 1. Approved November, 1910.]
Amendment 2 (1896) -- Art. 6 Section 1 QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS -- All male persons of the age of twenty-one years or over, possessing the following qualifications, shall be entitled to vote at all elections: They shall be citizens of the United States; they shall have lived in the state one year, and in the county ninety days, and in the city, town, ward or precinct thirty days immediately preceding the election at which they offer to vote; they shall be able to read and speak the English language: Provided, That Indians not taxed shall never be allowed the elective franchise: And further provided, That this amendment shall not effect [affect] the right of franchise of any person who is now a qualified elector of this state. The legislature shall enact laws defining the manner of ascertaining the qualifications of voters as to their ability to read and speak the English language, and providing for punishment of persons voting or registering in violation of the provisions of this section. [AMENDMENT 2, 1895 p 60 Section 1. Approved November, 1896.]

Original text -- Art. 6 Section 1 QUALIFICATIONS OF ELECTORS -- All male persons of the age of twenty-one years or over, possessing the following qualifications, shall be entitled to vote at all elections: They shall be citizens of the United States; They shall have lived in the state one year, and in the county ninety days, and in the city, town, ward or precinct thirty days immediately preceding the election at which they offer to vote; Provided, that Indians not taxed shall never be allowed the elective franchise; Provided, further; that all male persons who at the time of the adoption of this Constitution are qualified electors of the Territory, shall be electors.

SECTION 1A VOTER QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. In consideration of those citizens of the United States who become residents of the state of Washington during the year of a presidential election with the intention of making this state their permanent residence, this section is for the purpose of authorizing such persons who can meet all qualifications for voting as set forth in section 1 of this article, except for residence, to vote for presidential electors or for the office of President and Vice-President of the United States, as the case may be, but no other: Provided, That such persons have resided in the state at least sixty days immediately preceding the presidential election concerned. The legislature shall establish the time, manner and place for such persons to cast such presidential ballots. [AMENDMENT 46, 1965 ex.s. Substitute House Joint Resolution No. 4, p 2820. Approved November 8, 1966.]

So, it appears that, for practical purposes, I am disenfranchised. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disfranchisement v disenfranchisement

I think it's telling that the definition of disenfranchise is to disfranchise. Disfranchise is the term of art. Disenfranchise is a lay distortion. Thus, I think you should move it back, considering how I already had gone through most of the pages that linked to the latter and redirected them to the former. Foofighter20x (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, my law dictionary contains disfranchise, but not disenfranchise. Foofighter20x (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response on your talk page. -- Electiontechnology (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah... I'm lazy. You're the one who wants it in the lay term, so you can change it back. :p Foofighter20x (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, disenfranchise seems of the same genus of word as misunderestimate. Foofighter20x (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what is may "seem" to you, you would be incorrect. -- Electiontechnology (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this then. I'm sure he knows more about this than the both of us combined.Foofighter20x (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. If you start WikiPleadings, that would make a good article. -- Electiontechnology (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You miss my point. You claimed it was a term of art, which implies you are refering to it as a legal term. You then cite a style guide. I cite a legal dictionary contrary to your assertion. I'm not going to argue about this any more. Do what you want, bro. Foofighter20x (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't make WP policy, I follow it. There is a clear progression in both public policy and case law transitioning from disfranchise to disENfranchise. Any lawyer in the election law field will tell you that the more common term is EN. And the primary naming convention for WP is "Use the most easily recognized name."

Oh and to the term of art: LANE v. WILSON, 307 U.S. 268 (1939), HARMAN v. FORSSENIUS, 380 U.S. 528 (1965), HARPER v. VIRGINIA BD. OF ELECTIONS, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)

If you're actually interested in the topic email John Shuman at john@democraticlawyers.org. He's a pretty knowledgeable guy on the topic.

Nah. I'll let the all the lawyer/editors on WP reach a consensus and then abide by that. Don't get aggravated, dude. At least, that's how you are coming off. There's no need for the little snide remarks when you were changing back all the changes I made. You're own contribs page ratted you out, man. Foofighter20x (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. I was honestly trying to be direct, clear, and even helpful. No snididity (joke) intended. It just seemed like the conversation was getting lost in unrelated details. Even if disfranchise is the preferred or correct legal term (which depending on the context I would disagree with), that's not the standard in WP. -- Electiontechnology (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US presidential election, 2000 map

Hi. May I ask why you reverted an ip edit that changed the results map on the United States presidential election, 2000 article to one that is used in all the election articles previous to 1980 and is made by the US Dept. of the Interior and published in the National Atlas of the United States? Tim meh ! 16:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 election

By he, I meant Timmeh. It's irrelevant now -- you mentioned the picture gallery, and I'm currently in the process of making a map gallery for the page to envelope several maps for the page. -- Frightwolf (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my revert was in haste. I should have read the talk page before going on, but I guess I was getting used to stopping loony from his reverts. I appreciate the effort you made to gain consensus. -- Frightwolf (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

electronic voting

You're right about S&BS. Not a mfr. My bad. However, it does point out that there are more companies involved in this than just the manufacturers of the equipment, it is a software and service issue also. Anarchangel (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of election and quasi election services companies out there. It's kind of hard to kind a place to draw the line. There very quickly becomes an issue about advertising and runs afoul of WP's notability guidelines. I think for those reasons the logical place for the line should be those companies that run public elections or notable projects. I would agree though that the world of private elections is underrepresented in the WP election articles as well as remote voting in general. Electiontechnology (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So S&BS is not considered an election manufacturer because they don't make the hardware for it? They make election software, wouldn't that constitute an election manufacturer? Or is that simply a service provider? Benjamin Dominic (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different issues here. They don't actually sell hardware or software, they're an ASP. Regardless, as I said about advertising and notability guidelines are an issue when expanding that list. There are dozens of companies that provide some kind of election services and it wouldn't improve the article any to have just a list of them. The companies listed are there in part because they run public elections (a small group of notable companies). If there's a reason to add S&BS to the article, let's discuss. Electiontechnology (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect and understand that, however, drawing the line at solely public elections cuts off a huge and important WP discussion about how non-profit membership organizations, or for-profit shareholder companies and quasi-public organizations are electing their leadership or governing themselves. These are the people that are using these voting methods constantly, not just annually, biennially, or quadrennially. Right now this is too much under the radar, though. But discussion like this showing the players will help the public understand how this voting is done and who's responsible for making it secure and accurate for a member and their respective organization. SBS is a key player in this voting area. For example, one organization uses them to elect new members of scientists to their organization, who in turn become the people that are advising the US congress on scientific matters like global warming. Another client of theirs, IEEE, with 300,000 members worldwide, sets the technical standards in electronics. Another area, public pension funds with billions at stake, is a key client group near and dear to many hearts. SBS administers pension board of directors elections. Additionally, SBS was an advisor to electronic elections based in Minnesota in 2000, when they were first used for General Presidential elections. The WP community is voting everyday on these sort of things, not just in November every other year. So I think that notability is definitely there; it's certainly pertinent to this topic as a prominent representative of an underrepresented group. Benjamin Dominic (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wont get any disagreement from me that the private elections market is underrepresented in WP. I said that above. However I don't think it makes SB&S sufficiently notable to be included in the electronic voting article. IEEE is a big election and actually a fairly complex one and yes there are a lot of important private elections held every year of which some are managed by S&BS. However, S&BS to my knowledge isn't even the largest provider of private election services. WP is not a listing of industries. The standard for WP is notability. Notability is distinct from "fame," "importance," or "popularity." For a good place to list your company, you should check out the Open Directory Project. Electiontechnology (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electiontechnology

Electiontechnology,

Can I be so bold as to ask you what you do and why you feel it is your duty to regulate everything affiliated with elections? What makes you the authority over anyone else familiar with the industry? No offense intended, but I think I speak on behalf of a group of Wikipedia faithful in addressing these questions. You may want to review the guidelines of harassment. Benjamin Dominic (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin, I have no intent on regulating anything. I certainly don't see myself as any kind of authority. Again as I responded on you're talk page:

Benjamin, I'm a little confused here. You posted on MY talk page and I responded. I wasn't the one who nominated you're article for speedy deletion and I hope you don't take personally. The COI guidelines were a suggestion, and if you say they don't apply, I will take you're word and assume good faith. I'm still not sure what hounding or harassment you could possibly be referring to, but if you wish to end communication I will not object.

Electiontechnology (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey & Ballot Systems

Re Survey & Ballot Systems, contesting a prod is not vandalism, please read WP:PROD#Conflicts before you propose articles for deletion. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closedmouth, twice user accounts have been created for the sole purpose of removing both the prod tag and the maintenance templates. No changes were made to the article and there was no discussion on the talk page. If that's not vandalism, I will not contest, but please take a look. Sure seems like sock puppetry Electiontechnology (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but prod has to be completely uncontroversial. If someone is creating sockpuppets just to contest the prod, it means they don't want the article to be deleted, and the only way they have to express this is to remove the prod tag. This is not the kind of situation the prod process was designed to deal with. Take it to AfD. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made significant changes to the Survey & Ballot Systems article. These changes have dramatically shortened the article leaving no possibility of advertisement. I've added links to sources that provide information from the business and industry, to increase the notability and no longer utilize strictly one source. Look, Electiontechnology, in all honesty, I'm trying to make a contribution to Wikipedia. Clearly, I haven't edited a whole lot but I seek to do more so and I wanted to start with something that I'm very familiar with. I thank you for and encourage your constructive criticism, and I apologize for occasionally sounding scathing in tone. I need to assume good faith. Sincerely, Benjamin Dominic (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely appreciate these comments and your contributions to WP. Really I hope that you will continue to contribute and I believe that it will result in improvements to WP. My objections really are based on my interpretation of WP guidelines. I'm still not sure that S&BS warrants it's own article in WP. I just don't see how it fits within the guidelines, but that decision is going to be up to the broader WP community. I do however hope you will consider a more broad article that can certainly include S&BS. Possibly an article on Private elections? I think that could go a long way to explaining that world and would certainly warrant an article. It could explain the different types of elections (corporate proxy, association BOD, by laws amendments, etc.), discuss the legal aspects and generally explain the topic. Electiontechnology (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I agree, I think that could be a very worthwhile article; I will look to start it up. Is there anything else that can be done in order to avoid having the SBS page deleted at this point? I made a lot of changes that I thought improved the article a lot. If that article on private elections were made, do you think that SBS would become a more viable article? Stated another way, what has to be done in order to keep the page on WP? Benjamin Dominic (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that's a question I can answer. The deletion decision is up to the WP community. I personally don't think it warrants an article based on WP's notability guidelines. I wouldn't have nominated it if I thought there was any simple way to improve the article. I'm not the authority on WP notability, but my best answer to your question "what has to be done in order to keep the page on WP" is to present evidence that S&BS meets the general notability guidelines: "Significant coverage," "Reliable," "Sources," "Independent of the subject," and "Presumed." Hope that helps.

For the private elections article, I've actually put up a starter page with some possible\suggested framework (just some quick thoughts off the top of my head). We can work on it there before it's ready for prime time. Let me know what you think and feel free to edit it. Electiontechnology (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kops2222 Comments on election.com

I have read the decision of Justice Rosenblatt regarding his Memordandum and Order of VIP et al versus the Arizona Democratic Party. The court clearly determines that this was a public election. The plaintiff's argued that it was a public election, since it was for public office, public building were being used as polling places, and public voter registration rolls were being used. The Judge also referred to the election notice which called it the world's "first legally binding public election". For the judge, the key factor was that this election was an integral part in the electoral process for a high public office. There were also three amicus briefs filed in support of the internet election (by some legal stars including Harvard Law School), and I am trying to get copies of those.

I have also added several dozen additional references to the story, including the original Department of Justice Letter granting preclearance, the actual court decision from the US District Court, and one report to the United States Congress (which I have citied although I do not personally know this author).

I have also added a notation, that I have attempted to balance, noting that there is controvsy on this point, as well as the election in general.

Relative to your concerns, that this material might not be relevant or note worthy in a biography, I have added at least 15 new references from the world's leading media, including the International Herald Tribune, New York Times, BBC, LA Times, and Business Week, as well as the transcript from one interview on CNN. (There were hundreds more that I could have added from foreign press). Clearly, when there is a topic involving someone that was significant enough to warrants several thousand press articles from more than 40 countries in only four months, that should certainly referenced items relevant to that subjects bio.

I have bent over backwards to address your concerns to the best that any one editor can. Clearly, this editor, like any other, will have his own unique perspective, but I will certainly consider any other reasonable points you make. While we may disagree, I am trying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kops2222 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kops2222, I appreciate your new willingness to follow Wikipedia's guidelines. I have to say it's the first time I've been accused of trying to bury content on Election Technology. We've got a couple of different issues that need to be addressed here.

These aren't my concerns you're addressing, they're established policy of WP.
Your references "citing" the election as public have some issues. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability to learn more about this. Separate from the fact that you sources are not publicly available, the most significant issue is that it is your interpretation of a primary source that it is was public election.
I am not now, nor have I ever challenged the note worthy aspect of this election. The point is that the biography of Joe Mohen is not the place for it in an encyclopedia. I have long said that Internet voting is an underrepresented topic in WP. If you would like to assist, I recommend we start such an article. I have taken the liberty of putting together a temporary page where the article can be built until it's ready for public consumption. User talk:Electiontechnology/Internet voting (I put a copy of your content there)
I am a little bit concerned that you have addressed Will's comments on your talk page about the potential of a WP:COI. You do appear to be relaying first hand accounts of things. (If you are Joe, it's ok to say so).

Electiontechnology (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The records in the VIP lawsuit, are public records from a historic court case. Why are you calling that a private source? Indeed that is a verifyable source, and is more reliable than any other in describing the courts findings?

I think it is a good idea to start an internet elections or internet voting pages. I can help, and can engage many others who can also help. It will be a healthy exercise for us. Electiontalk, your classification of the Arizona Primary as a private versus public election, is your opinion, not a fact; you are not following Wikipedia guidlines in editing wiki pages to enforce what is your opinion, one that is not shared by many. I know it is very hard for you, but this is important. Kops2222 (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)kops2222[reply]

Kops222, it's becoming quite clear that you are simply going to ignore points that you don't want to address and that this conversation is not going to progress. Electiontechnology (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found several references in books, news articles, and research papers that classify the 2000 Primary as a "public" election, and one very study of experts that calls it a "hybrid public private election", the latter being sponsored by the National Science Foundation. I am not trying to be thick or obstinate, but you should acknowledge that your classification of the 2000 AZ primary is not shared by many, many smart people. Kops2222 (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)kops2222[reply]

NowCommons: File:Votomatic.jpg

File:Votomatic.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Votomatic.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Votomatic.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E2E Article

I was wondering if we could reach a consensus on a history section for the E2E auditable elections article. I had included two things, a brief commentary on internet vs. secret ballot booth elections and then a list of E2E elections that have been held (unsourced). The commentary may not have been appropriate -- is there an appropriate way to highlight the difference between the internet voting environment where anyone could be standing over your shoulder watching you vote (also like vote by mail) and an environment with a ballot booth? To me, it's an important distinction. If someone can watch how you vote, then why cryptographically protect the vote at all (issues like this have been wrestled with in the academic literature).

Second, while the list of E2E elections that have been run was unsourced, do you have a general problem with listing the E2E election that have been run in the article? If I were to source each entry, would you let it stand?

I am planning a general clean-up of the article from "E2E Systems" and down and will be working on it here: User:Pulpspy/E2E_Draft.

Pulpspy (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly like to reach a consensus. I would like to point out that I'm not any sort of authority in WP (or more so that anyone else), so it's not really a matter of whether I would let anything stand. First, a commentary of internet vs. voting booth elections doesn't belong in an article about E2E. I think the distinction you are trying to make is between remote and in person voting (with protections from coercion). The issue is E2E can be used in either scenario, and that fact is really the only element relevant to the E2E article.

I have no issue with a sourced list of E2E elections.

- Electiontechnology (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]