PLEASE HELP!!!! ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA WILL DELETE FRAUD

DISCUSSION UNLESS SOMEONE FIGURES OUT HOW TO PREVENT DELETION!!
The online encyclopedia has an EXCELLENT article on election problems (fraud) of 2004. It discusses Diebold, mentions DU, has numerous diagrams, graphs, etc., and it has been nominated for deletion. This is a well read source for online research.

Link to article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities#Evidence_of_electronic_voting_bias

Link to DU thread about deletion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x41925

Edited to add link as suggested in post below: (Wicket post #5)Please leave comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities&action=edit§ion=new

their instructions. If we have any lawyers out here, can you break down the gobbledygook for me so I can vote for RETENTION of this article.

The guy who wanted it deleted is apparently a political hack that they are sort of discounting....

cheer them up! How do we vote?

Leave a comment here to ask it not to be deleted, hope it works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities&action=edit§ion=new

:D

LOL!!! Thanks so much for the link. I left a comment, and I'll post it elsewhere.

No it's just a coincidence, I just went digging around their site to see where people could comment to protest deletions. They didn't make it easy to find! You are very welcome :)

:kick:

comment page link.

Isn't that a kick of a coincidence though? That Wicket should respond to and answer my question about Wikipedia...(I mean it's a weird name; not at all usual)

It is pretty funny :)

I have been following the developments closely and found your compilation of information very helpful.

At this point in time, it appears to me that there are serious concerns that have not yet been fully understood by most of the media or others. The responses tending to discount the concerns fail to address the strongest evidence giving rise to those concerns.

For example, as I understand from professional statisticians, the Cal Tech article draws on exit poll data that had already been artificially "corrected" to more closely match the actual votes being reported. In addition, the study fails to address one of the most disturbing aspects of the discrepancy between exit polls reported votes, which is that the "shift" toward Bush took place very strongly only in those swing states the Republicans needed most, and not in other states. I do not mean this as a disparagement of those who conducted the study; it's just that it's very narrow and doesn't really resolve much.

There are many factors affecting the results, tending in various directions, that I believe must be analyzed and investigated before we can even be sure of how to avoid problems in the future.

For now, I think it is extremely helpful for Wikipedia to continue to serve as a source of useful information about this crucially important topic.

I cited the Wiki article in a form letter I developed and sent for others to use to bombard media and government officials (I also gave them contact info). I estimate it's reached thousands of folks by now, and I'd REALLY like to keep the Wiki article alive, to keep the form letter relevant. So everyone, please contact Wiki and comment! Here it is again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities&action=edit§ion=new

Thanks!

Make an account first then vote to keep it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities