Jump to content

User talk:71.178.193.134

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.178.193.134 (talk) at 14:06, 29 January 2009 (→‎United States presidential election, 2008: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Request

Since Anon users can't start pages, can someone start my user page for me? I would very much like to add some information. Thanks! --71.178.193.134 (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started your user page, as requested, though I suspect you could have done it yourself. Please consider registering. --Hordaland (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

e-Democracy

Can I ask you why you are deleting the entry on Who Comments? It seem to fit the remit of the article and is similar to the other entries. Please expain yourself.213.219.18.82 (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion page for the article. --71.178.193.134 (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voter Registration

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Voter registration, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In these states, one type of voter intimidation is to inform people falsely that registration is closed."
I rather suspect that this is true, but it obviously cannot stand in the article without sourcing/documentation. If you can supply at least one acceptable reference, that would be a good deed. --Hordaland (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are right. After closer inspection "In these states" certainly makes for a specific claim requiring a source. My apologies for the hasty edit. I reverted myself. --71.178.193.134 (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Bob Urosevich has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election in Florida, 2000

Please stop reverting the edit on Lieberman's role in halting the challenge to overseas ballots in Florida. Your take on what the source says is at absolute best far from clear, and as the discussion on the article's talk page indicates, quite likely flat-out wrong. In addition, your edits to this sentence have twice left the sentence in question unintelligible.

Again, if you think the edit on Lieberman is misleading re: the extent of Democratic agreement to the challenge to overseas balloting, the best place to raise that disagreement is the talk page -- not via meat-cleaver editing. Jhw57 (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, comments on the talk page. Please try to be civil in your comments. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request per Freeman

You ask my relationship with Freeman: I admire his book and think more people ought to read it, especially as the election is coming up. I have corresponded with him but not about this.

I'm sorry for leaving it in an incomplete state. I'm new to wikipedia. SO i'm just learning now how to use it.

I didn't think it was advertising. What bothers you about it? I did copy the quotes section from his book promo and was going to edit it, but i got tired. I'll fix it up tomorrow if that's OK.

Also who are you, if you don't mind me asking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buon professore (talk • contribs) 03:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i went back and took out the quotes. is that ok? --Buon professore (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the new edits. It just seemed eather unencyclopedic. I was hoping to get some feedback from the greater WP community with the tag. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just giving you a heads up to let you know that I posted a reply to our discussion on Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies#Wikilinks. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 06:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open Voting Consortium

You appear to be edit warring at this article over the use of a name that didn't exist at the time period being cited; You're not supposed to revert someone elses work more than 3x in a day (well, you're not supposed to get even that far, but that's the ultima thule). Please stop.

As to the content, the simple answer is to say "Diebold subsidiary" and be done with it, since the company was a subsidary of diebold then and still is today. The berkley planet article was very clear that this was a specifc response to a specific concern. Diebold is also the best known name when it comes to this matter. If you have an argument to make while we should ignore the source and use a name that came into use long after the time period refered to, make it on talk.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption would be incorrect. There is no war here and I fear you don't read either my edits or talk page comments very clearly. At no time would a link to Diebold have been accurate. Please do some level of research before making wild accusations. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't look like 3rr yet to me [1] but its heading that way. Please talk more and revert less (both of you) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sure hope it's not headed that way. If you take a look at both my edits in the article and on the talk page, I've been trying to find some level of consensus short of inaccuracies. I'm open to an outside suggestion if you've got one. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PES

I reverted a single edit of yours because it had an inaccurate edit summary. You said you were removing excess citations about a video release but you also deleted several paragraphs. Please give separate rationales for removing those. I also suggest that you register an account. It is free and provides several benefits.   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow

We were getting so close to a consensus, and I agreed with you on the sources. Why did you need to propose something totally new? It would just instigate more heated debate which we have enough of. Timmeh! 12:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2008

Though it ain't necessary. Would you create an account for yourself & then sign-in, please? GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really seen much need for it. I don't think some meaningless monicker (like "GoodDay") is any less anonymous than a number. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.178.193.134&oldid=267189255"