RyanFreisling

==Weird Vandal Count== * 199.0.195.37 * 217.8.212.180 * 69.148.200.14 * 168.12.253.66 == Talk Talk == Signing your comments properly is very important. Whenever you reply on a Talk page (or anything except an article), type in "-- ~~~~" after your words. This adds a signature, sort of like mine. -- User:Netoholic User talk:Netoholic 07:29, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC) : Just like that. Two dashes, and four ~ (tildes). -- User:Netoholic User talk:Netoholic 07:38, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC) Go into your user Special:Preferences. Find the form field for "Your nickname (for signatures):". Type in "]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@". You can replace the @ with (talk) or anything else you'd like that link to read. -- User:Netoholic User talk:Netoholic 07:45, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC) ==Welcome== Welcome to Wikipedia, Ryan. If you have any more general questions, you can always ask at the Wikipedia:help desk or privately on other users' talk pages. User:Raul654 08:09, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC) :Thanks so much for the welcome. :) -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 08:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Netoholic's poll == I agree totally. I just added this to the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic/Evidence page. - User:Ta bu shi da yu 03:47, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Great source! Thanks. == Excellent source on vote suppression in Columbus, Ohio! User:Kevin baas | User_talk:Kevin_baas 19:53, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC) ==Re: PHPW-MW converstion== I'll be happy if you can get something useful out of it! Consider it in the public domain. :-) --User_talk:Valmi">User:Valmi|ValmiUser_talk:Valmi 00:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) == 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy == Hi Ryan, In 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy#Provisional_ballots_in_Ohio you state that the ''"ruling was challenged by Democratic attorneys and overturned"'', yet I see no mention of that in the source link you left [http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/985]. I would be very interested if this was in fact the case, so could you, when you have time, fill me in on what I'm missing? Thanks! User:Noosphere 06:18, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC) :It says the ruling was turned down? Where does it say that? Are we talking about the same article? [http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/985 This] is the one I'm talking about. And it says, ''"A new rule for counting provisional ballots in Cuyahoga County, Ohio was implemented on Tuesday, November 9"''. I don't see any mention it was turned down. Can you quote the specific passage where it says it? I'm lost. User:Noosphere 08:35, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC) :: Aha! I knew I must have been missing something. Thank you, Ryan. == Your conduct == Do not use Wikipedia:Edit summary to convey messages ("''Netaholic - you should know by now how to address copyvio issues - it's not outright deletion.''"), use talk pages. Also, do not label other editors' actions as "Wikipedia:Vandalism" unless they fit the Wikipedia:Vandalism - it is considered a Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -- User:Netoholic User talk:Netoholic 17:23, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC) :My apologies if you interpreted as an attack. I saw it as a description of your less-than-positive contribution to the article in question. I appreciate your comment. Have a nice day. -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 17:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Problems with GWB intro == Please help. On the George W. Bush article there is a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=George_W._Bush&diff=0&oldid=8077962 dispute] that you might be interested in. User:Kevin baas | User_talk:Kevin_baas 18:57, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC) ==image== Do I rock now? Comments on the colors or other attributes? User:Kevin baas | User_talk:Kevin_baas 20:54, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC) :You rock wholeheartedly. I would pick up the blue in the bars and use it or a variant as one of the states' colors. I would also lighten the darkest brown. Last, i would reduce the whole thing's size by about 75%. :It looks lovely, and thanks again! -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 21:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::How's that? User:Kevin baas | User_talk:Kevin_baas 22:10, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC) ::: :) :) -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 22:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==Request IRC chat== I am requesting IRC chat on #wikipedia. User:Kevin baas | User_talk:Kevin_baas 23:14, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC) ==FWIW, the Boston Globe & the Image== They said $25 a pop. User:Kevin baas | User_talk:Kevin_baas 21:41, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC) :Who needs 'em anyway. :) -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 22:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Article Licensing == Hi, I've User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project to get users to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (''CC-by-sa'') v1.0 and v2.0 Creative Commons Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The ''CC-by-sa'' license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at ''minimum'' those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information: *User talk:Ram-Man#Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered *Wikipedia:Multi-licensing *User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "" template into their user page, but there are other options at Wikipedia:Template messages/User namespace#Licensing Templates. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page: :Option 1 :I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below: : OR :Option 2 :I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below: : Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "" with "". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. ''Please let me know'' what you think at my User talk:Ram-Man. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- User:Ram-Man ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new comment]| User talk:Ram-Man == Election VfD, etc == You're sane; they're crazy. KUTGW. :-) -- User:Baylink 19:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) == can you handle this? == can you handle this? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Current_events&curid=1231242&diff=0&oldid=0] The day that evidence of preparation for recount fraud is superfluous, is the day that we are royally f****d. User:Kevin baas | User_talk:Kevin_baas 00:02, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC) == actions and words == You said: :''"I believe ideally it should be, but the allegations and claims that have come out have not yet resulted in action that has changed the process of the election. Should the OH Electoral votes be challenged, or the OH Supreme Court respond in a noteworthy way to the recent lawsuit, or other significant issues arise that are more than testimony and affidavits, etc., then absolutely imho it should be. One can also argue that the filing of the Arnebeck suit, the meetings of the Congressional Forum, etc., are newsworthy events independently of the controversy."'' Is this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Carrp what you truly believe?] User:Kevin baas | User_talk:Kevin_baas 22:40, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC) :I'm not sure what you mean - I wouldn't have said it if I didn't believe it. I don't appreciate the title, and what I'm inferring from this post. -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 01:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::Noted. I just wanted to make you aware of the RFC, for whatever it was worth to you. I was trying to be rhetorical, not offensive. I apologize. User:Kevin baas | User_talk:Kevin_baas 05:45, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC) :::Accepted, and I'm sorry I misinterpreted you. :) I saw the RFC, but I think the current 'Current Events' page is pretty good - I just added a video link for the Dec 13 hearing. -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 05:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==Current events== Thank you for your note on my talk page. I'm all in favour of coming to a reasonable solution, so let's deal with this quickly. The House of Reps has not launched an investigation that will lead to the overturning of the results of the presidential election. So we shouldn't have wording in current events that implies that it may have as significant event such as that. I don't know how important the House Commission decision is (I'm British, so I wouldn't). But I can see how any House Commission may be relatively significant - particularly where it affects voting rules. I think both my concern is at the overplaying of the importance and your view that it is noteworthy news can both be accommodated. The lead in "US presidential controversy" should go. The news remain. And a note that it will not overturn the election result is added. I'll add this to current events. Hope this is ok. (As you may have guessed before, I want to keep things in perspective, not suppress noteworthy news.) User:Jongarrettuk 21:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Not at all - thanks for the response, I feel the same way. I'm not sure what you mean by "the lead in". Which part do you think provides a distorted view/perspective? -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 21:44, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) Having thought about it more, I think it's the heading "US presidential election controversy" that overplays it. That implies there is something serious enough to dispute the election results (which I don't think anyone really believes is the case even if they'd wish otherwise). Without that, IMHO sensationalist, heading, based on the last time I read the page, the story is sensibly reported. User:Jongarrettuk 22:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) :I agree, but I think that although there may be many things serious enough to warrant disputing the results (crime is crime, fraud is fraud, statute re fraud is clear), the likelihood it will actually happen is astronomically near to nil. -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 22:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) I'd say nil - but I think we're there:) It always takes more than two to compromise, and I think we've come to a reasonable solution. Take care. User:Jongarrettuk 22:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Ohio recount, Cuyahoga == I found this: [http://www.blackboxvoting.org/dcforum/DCForumID4408/52.html] But I can't site a blog. Any ideas? User:Kevin baas | User_talk:Kevin_baas 23:33, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC) == We happy few == "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition: And gentlemen in England now a-bed Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day." -William Shakespeare Excellent reference. :) User:Kevin_baas^{User_talk:Kevin_baas} 05:51, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC) == html table around organization's list on election contro article == Were you the one that added the html table formatting around the organizations list in the election controversies article? Either way I really think we should remove it as it is unnecessary, it adds size to the article and is ugly because border != 0. User:Zen-master 00:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) :No, I believe Kevin made that table. -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 00:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Of user pages and the talking thereon == I think you meant [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Korath&curid=518498&diff=0&oldid=0 this] to be User talk:Korath. --User:fvw*">User talk:Fvw 03:06, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC) :Thanks for cleaning up after my mess. :) -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 03:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Ehm, I didn't. I'm leaving that pleasure all to you :~) --User:fvw*">User talk:Fvw 03:10, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC) :::LOL. On my way... :) == Election RFC == Ryan, my RFC summary exactly described the debate. You stated yourself that "No one disagrees that this should be a summary". Thus, there is consensus ("There is currently consensus that the main article should be made into a summary...". The debate is over how the editing should be done ("...but there is debate over the proper editing method.") Please stop reverting the RFC. It is NOT productive. User:Carrp 03:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) :You misstate the argument in your summary. That is unacceptable. No one feels the article should not be a summary with detail articles. That is already the model. At issue is the process. Please stop the spin. -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 03:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::In reference to your edit summary on the RFC page: "and have not made good faith edits, as an editor". I would like to refer you to Wikipedia: No personal attacks. Every edit I have made on the election controversy page has been an attempt to take an article that is well below WP standards and make it better. Removing absurdly irrelevant external links are not bad faith edits. I'll leave the RFC statement as it is because I will not get pulled into a revert war. User:Carrp 03:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) :::My rationale is clear. The bad faith is in your assertion you 'cannot' participate in the editing process, that it is a foregone conclusion. It doesn't connote any motive. I am honestly sorry you were offended, but there is an entire section already in existence, addressing the edits you've made, and the community's response. -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 03:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::::The community amounted to about three users, hardly a WP consensus. I do get the sense that some users are claiming "ownership" over the controversy articles, even if they don't directly state such a fact. The harsh truth is: The article in its current state is not a good article. It's far too long, poorly organized and barely readable by anyone lacking intimate knowledge of the subject. Information has been thrown into it over a period over several months and any attempt to remove information is met with strong resistance. What needs to be done now is to stop all this quarrelling over the process and start improving the article. User:Carrp 03:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) :::::Agreed about what's needed next, disagree with your negative assessment of the article. And I'm not sure if 'some people' means me, but I don't object to changing the article - I object to supplanting the natural wiki process with parallel development and outright article replacement. Let's all try to focus on editing the actual article narrative, as the references and links can easily be moved. It's the selective removal of sources, and the absence of edits of substance to the article, that contributes to a slowdown in the article's improvement. -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 04:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) ==Congressional record== Sounds good. If it was removed, it would by interesting to know who removed it/requested it's removal (is responsible), and if possible, what their reasoning was. User:Kevin_baas^{User_talk:Kevin_baas} 21:17, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC) == little help on exit poll reasoning == What's up Ryan, I am writing a paper for a journalism class on the 2004 election controversies, and I wanted to know if you could help me with something. I'm currently doing the section on exit polling and in writing an argument about its use as evidence towards the vote count being wrong rather than the exit polling, I'm having troubles answering a defense of the vote count being correct: :"Kerry underperformed the exit polls in states all across the nation, in states with both Democratic and Republican election officials, in states with all different kinds of election machines and tabulation machines from various companies. :Which is a more likely hypothesis: that a national conspiracy of utterly breathtaking size managed to systematically steal millions of votes for Bush unnoticed, or that the exit polls skewed toward Kerry due to methodological problems?" He's got a point, while there is a significant discrepancy of battleground states towards non-battleground states, the fact that almost all 49 states with recorded exit polls are skewed towards Kerry in respect to the actual vote count is hard to dismiss as not hurting the case for the exit polls being correct, as to imply fraud means you have to assume fraud in almost all states (albeit on a much smaller scale in smaller states, but they couldn't have done all the states, as manipulating states that are assuredly going to Kerry yields no advantage and plenty of disadvantages for Republicans) What do you think? --User:Kizzle 23:05, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC) :Perhaps both happened? the above doesn't explain the discrepancy between swing and non-swing states. (And doesn't explain that the only available data suggest that the poll should be skewed in the opposite direction. And doesn't explain that when you correct for the irregularities 9see Moss v. Bush), the exit poll, in ohio at least, is reasonably accurate.) User:Kevin_baas^{User_talk:Kevin_baas} 23:13, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC) ::The likelihood of the direction of the skew going so overwhelmingly for one candidate, and the debunked assemblage of supposed reasons for that skew, is still a very open question. There is absolutely no possible polling methodology that would have so overwhelmingly favored one candidate over the other. Moreover, if you look at the exit poll data, you see that the Kerry skew was 'corrected' by a late application of overwhelmingly pro-Bush votes, which has been referred to by some as 'weighting', but the exit polls were already weighted. None of these issues, nor many others, has ever been explained to my satisfaction. If a methodological error brought this about, all the more reason to examine the exit polls and methods more closely. Bear in mind that the new Mitofsky process, etc. was designed since the 2000 election, to safeguard against exactly this kind of situation. None of the alleged 'reasons' for the irregularities vis-a-vis exit polls is possible, given the design of the exit polling strategy described prior to the election. -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 23:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::I saw that Kizzle posted that quote to the exit polls article. imho, the quote itself is superfluous to the point being made, and does not belong as the 'representative' or 'most informative' quote for the Freeman section. Removed it and mod'ed the text accordingly. -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 00:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::Hey, I just added that quote as a critique of Freeman's paper, I've been searching for any criticisms on his paper, as there is no analysis of his paper like there is for CalTech... while his paper is much more rock-solid, and even MysteryPollster.com's criticisms of his paper are pretty weak, I couldn't get over that one. And seeing as its some random post to the comments section of MysteryPollster, it ''definetely'' is not the most influential quote, It was just the only criticism that I could not easily dismiss from his paper. ::::I myself am trying to find an answer to this criticism, as it doesn't exactly help my paper. Here's the thing, I know fully well the discrepancy not only between the 12 battleground states (including Nebraska because of Chuck Hagel) is much more divergent than the rest of them, but that's not my point. If one is going to use the exit polls as an indicator that election fraud occured, how does one explain that almost all 49 states polled show a red shift towards Bush, even non-battleground states? Clearly there is a systemwide favor towards Kerry in the exit polls as compared to the vote counts, we all can admit that. But if our reason for this discrepancy is voter fraud and thus the vote count being off, then we must accept that it occured in many many more states than simply the 12 battleground states. Is that what you are holding to? --User:Kizzle 03:48, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) :::::I'm not really holding to any particular opinion as to the cause (especially given the obscurity on the issue), except to say that the discrepancy was indeed sizable, in states that included more than the 12 - for example, the 'red shift' was huge in NY state, which was never in doubt as a 'blue' state. Unfortunately, that fact doesn't tell us whether fraud, or mistake, is more likely. The assumption that the likelihood of fraud is tied to battleground states is flawed. They're separate issues. -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 04:13, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::::Of course exit poll discrepancies in themselves do not prove fraud. But that does not mean that people use exit polls to justify the possibility of fraud. Put it simply, the reason why the exit polls section is included in the 2004 election controversies is because its an indicator that something possibly was wrong with the vote count. If one is to use the exit poll as a justification for the belief in the occurance of fraud, they must also accept that this vote must have been committed in a majority of states, not only the 12 battleground states. This is a separate and autonomous conclusion from the discrepancy between battleground and non-battleground states, of which I also see a huge discrepancy. If you personally are not holding on to exit polls as an indicator towards fraud, then you obviously wouldn't be in a position to answer the question, but I believe that they are indicative, and this fact is something which I have not been able to resolve with my personal intuitions.--User:Kizzle 04:58, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) :::::::I'm not 'holding on' to anything as an indicator of fraud - there are many. I think you meant 'must also accept that this ''fraud'' may have occured'. And my belief doesn't really bear on my ability to 'answer the question', I'll answer according to what I know to be factual, not my unsupported intuitions. I think one presumes too much knowledge to conclusively state that the exit polls, their manipulation and possible fraud had to occur in multiple states - hypothetically, the data could have been manipulated after collection, etc. They are related, controversial issues, not a house of interdependent cards. The irregularities in the exit polls (as with so many other aspects of the election) is to me the real issue, not whether they are to be believed or not as some kind of 'control group' to illustrate fraud. They had been used quite successfully in other elections, in other places and other nations - but their utter failure this time (regardless of your perspective) is, itself, suspect. -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 06:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::::::Ok, you could respond to my queries with a bit less guarded wording, but I think we're on the same page. I only would want you to state factual information, the only thing I'm trying to resolve is that a belief that exit polls support a fraudulent vote count takes this from the "red shift" seen towards Kerry's direction. The fact that the battleground states, despite having twice as many respondants and thus much less error, have much more significant errors, 7 states completely out of the margin of error, of which the odds of all 7 beyond this margin are 10 million to 1, increases the likelihood that these states were specifically targeted. ''However'', this red shift is also apparent in many other states and almost universally towards Bush. Thus, if one concludes that this ''unanimous'' red shift supports the case for fraud, they must also hold that this fraud goes beyond 12 battleground states and is rampant within many other states. And let me ask you this, what specifically interests you about the irregularities in themselves if not its relevance to a case for fraud, because if the exit polls are indeed correct that this is what we have. Exit polls are not being used as a 'control group' to illustrate fraud as you say, they are the preliminary evidence for such a viewpoint. But, whatever, we're getting in circles, you don't have an answer for this critique of the claim for fraud, i'll move on :) --User:Kizzle 12:04, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) :::::::::My answer, while perhaps not as sound-bitey as you would like, is above. And it is a valid answer. The 'red shift' may or may not support the case for fraud - what I am interested in is it's irregularity, not an assumption of an unsupported indication of fraud. I am interested in the irregularities because (as I already mentioned) the system was scrapped and redesigned specifically for this election, specifically to avoid this from happening... and the occurence of such massive discrepancies is, to those in the know, quite a surprise to say the least. I'd go so far as to say they are genuinely inexplicable. As far as an assumption that these discrepancies are themselves an indication of fraud, I can only say that if you begin from a flawed premise, you are unlikely to reach a factual solution. The entire argument is flawed and you cannot formulate a logical response to an illogical question. -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 17:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) If I may butt in here (I'd use kizzle's talk page or the /smoke/exit polls talk page, but commenting here is closer to the relevant discussion.) ... I think what Ryan's trying to say is something that I am in agreement with: it's a subtlety, it doesn't make your point any weaker. Yes, exit polls are used as an indicator of fraud, and yes, the more an exit poll is skewed the higher the probability (and most probable degree of severity) of fraud. None of this is being disputed. What is being acknowledged, is that this is ''statistics'', and, as such, cannot, by definition, imply logical neccessity. Logical neccessity would require probabilities exactly equal (infinitely close doesn't count) to either 1 or 0. Absent such probability measures (which can't really be called probability measures anymore), phrases such as "absolutely certain" or "can only be", etc. are mathematically ''false''. Any person competent in statistics and/or probabilty would be turned off by the use of such a phrase, and rightly so. User:Kevin_baas^{User_talk:Kevin_baas} 18:27, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC) :Of course the only thing statistics can imply is correlation and not causation, i'm really not trying to say that exit polls make anything true a priori. But are you telling me that you simply view the irregularities as "inexplicable" and "a surprise"? You have no conclusions based upon this data, keeping in mind statistics can only correlate? If it were me, ''knowing full well that statistics do not prove anything'', I would have at least intuitions ''based upon logical assumptions from this data''. And if its not fraud, how exactly do you explain the 10,000:1 odds that Bush beat the margin of error in exit polls in 7 of 12 battleground states? Was it because the interviewers were young, women were oversampled, weather conditions, 50-foot distance of pollsters to voting station, interviewers did not sample through the whole day, Mitovsky's 'Kerry voters were more likely to respond than Bush voters', Republican constituencies were under-represented, or that since 1988 exit polls have favored democrats (all are explanations of which I am User:Kizzle/smoke/exit_polls)... if it wasn't fraud then what was it? Or are you content to simply state that there were significant errors way outside the margin of error, but you have no ideas as to how it happened? I'm on the same side Ryan, seriously, as while your response is quite logical, its definetely guarded language to say the least. --User:Kizzle 22:13, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) ::Kizzle, you have said you are 'on the same side' as me a few times in discussion, and that's where your error lies. I'm not fighting whatever battle it is you think "we're" fighting. I view the irregularities as 'inexplicable' simply because I have seen absolutely no proof of any cause for what I view as stunningly irregular exit poll results in 2004. The MOE was blown this time by such a massive degree, in more than just the battleground states, that ''something'' happened. I have simply seen no proof of what it was. And I don't view wikipedia as the platform to speculate. I'm sorry you view that as guarded. -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 23:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::Nah, just your general wording is a bit guarded, but whatever :). I just wanted to know if you had any ideas as to the cause of these irregularities, and while Wikipedia articles are not the place for speculation based upon logical assumptions, talk pages and argument papers are.--User:Kizzle 22:08, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC) ::::Which I why I deleted the aforementioned quote from the actual article... and I'm not sure what you're trying to get from denigrating my words as 'guarded' and otherwise casting me in a tentative light, I've not done it to you, nor your assertions. Trust me, if I knew any causes of the exit poll discrepancies, you would be among the first 100,000 to hear about it. -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 01:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::::Ok dude. I'm not trying to denigrate you in any way, i'm probably just misreading you :) ...all i wanted was a guess, conjecture, speculation, anything about the implications of most all states exhibiting "red shift". --User:Kizzle 05:16, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC) ::::::The implications are anywhere from inexplicable to terrifying. We're all trying to find fact to stand on. -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 06:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::::::We all are. I'd say that Ryan's take on this here may be construed as even more terrifying than Kizzle's: ryan's acknowledges that, given all the knowledge we have about irregularities, (which is quite alarming) that only accounts for ''some'' of the discrepancy. Many of us are trying to find fact to stand on. I recall again a statement a friend of mine said "People don't want the truth, they want answers." Personally, I'm hard to satisfy. I think we all see this as a historical event. Hell - it's only the second time in the history of the u.s. that electoral votes were objected to, and the first time it was because of irregularities. And any of us who have been learning a lot about kenneth blackwell don't have much confidence in the man's moral (or psychological, for that matter) integrity, and that tends to skew the probabilities. So we're looking at it, and thinking "I'm here now. I see this. I'm an adult now. It's my turn; it's my ''responsibility.'' What am I going to do? What can I do? No, really, I can do, and if one of us doesn't noone will. I read the history books. Who did that? What were they thinking and feeling? What affect did it have? Now it's my turn to make the kind of choices they had to make. I'm here, and this is happening now. Don't hesitate; don't freeze up. Do what should be done." Which is, as we all understand, telling people what you know, the few facts that you have to balance on. This is one medium that I think we've done a pretty good job on. They'll be some tweaks here and there, still, but we caught the deluge with a paper cup. Kizzle's working on another medium, a one with different possibilities. And I think it's a good next step. Give more people more facts to stand on, and a shoulder or two to stand on. (hell, we've had our share.) User:Kevin_baas^{User_talk:Kevin_baas} 07:55, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC) ::::::::Oh? A voting irregularities-related project? Sounds interesting... -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 22:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) Hey, about the exit poll data, so far I don't believe the official results have been released. I am working on a project, you can view it User:Kizzle/smoke... I'm trying to come up with a commentary which I'll either turn into a script for a documentary or an essay to submit to publications (all I have done for commentary is exit polls, voting machine research is 80% done). If you have any feedback, see any incorrect data, or have any info you think should be included (keeping in mind while length is not a problem for the moment, the commentary needs to focus on those who know absolutely nothing about any of this)... please let me know in the talk pages. So far in my research I haven't come across any news that the un-"corrected" polls will ever be released, so far the 12:23am freeman/simon data is the most accurate so far. But as I've been researching I've tried to add sources and misc. things I've learned. For example, once I'm done with my voting machines section, I'm going to try to add an entire HAVA section to the irregularities article, there is some shady shit going on, check out BBV chapter 16 (I learned a bunch of shit about Bev Harris and her filing a Qui Tam lawsuit as well, and why there's a blackboxvoting.org and .com, and why Keith Olbermann wouldn't interview her), HAVA/ITAA/Election Center definetely needs to be given more prominance, as its the reason why voting machines are more prevelent this year than last election, along with who was responsible for it, and Scope.co.nz/David Allen's transcript of the conference call.--User:Kizzle 23:19, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC) :The data have been released. You will not see the raw data, nor the precinct-level data, released any time soon. That raise any flags? You can also get this data at the [http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/2004_presidential_election_polls.html Roper Center] for $79, which contains the national and state exit poll data for 2000 and 2004. The article's URL points to the 'FastTrack' system, which is publishing the data. I'm not hosting it, if you thought I was. Good to see your project getting started, I'll see what I can contribute! ==The saga of Kevin Shelley, CA SoS== :And, you must cover the saga of Kevin Shelley, California SoS. -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 00:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) About Shelley, is [http://www.ballotpaper.org/archives/000134.html this] what you're talking about, how him de-certifying them for California use because of post-certification modifications? What else do i need to know? --User:Kizzle 19:02, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC) :Lots. Read up on how he has been forced to resign for what appear to be vastly overblown or trumped-up charges, after his move decertifying Diebold and establishing rigid requirements for CA. There have been calls by those leading the campaign against him [http://www.shelleymustresign.com/news.htm] for his election requirements to be thrown out entirely. :Here's a list of links I saw on DU. [http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=319613&mesg_id=319931&page=] and a bunch of links on the specific regulations [http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x332059] :And some salient articles: :[http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-shelley26jan26,0,4430248,print.story?coll=la-home-local] ::''LA Times:Audit Renews Calls for Shelley to Quit'' :''January 26, 2005'' ::''SACRAMENTO � Pressure mounted for Secretary of State Kevin Shelley to resign as auditors announced Tuesday that they had requested a criminal investigation into his hiring practices and handling of employees' complaints.'' ::''The financing of his 2002 campaign is already being investigated by state authorities and a federal grand jury, and legislators are examining his office's alleged mismanagement of $46 million in federal voting funds.'' ::''So a highly critical, 50-page audit by the state Personnel Board deepened the political and legal problems that have dogged Shelley for six months. The audit accused Shelley, a demanding boss known for outbursts of temper, of maintaining a hostile work environment during the 18 months ending June 30.'' :[http://www.sacbee.com/user_registration/login/?goto=http%3A//www.sacbee.com/content/politics/shelley/story/12235220p-13099223c.html] ::''Published 2:15 am PST Friday, February 4, 2005 ::''California's chief county elections official says Secretary of State Kevin Shelley's administration has created a "full-blown crisis" that threatens the state's compliance with federal law and its ability to conduct the 2006 elections.'' ::''In testimony prepared for a legislative committee, Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters Conny McCormack blasted Shelley's process for approving voting machine systems the counties must purchase, and suggested he had manipulated the system "to favor or punish some equipment vendors." She called on the Legislature to step in and take over the process.'' ::''"County election officials have concluded that the voting system certification process in California is completely broken," McCormack, president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, wrote to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee scrutinizing Shelley's alleged misuse of millions in federal Help America Vote Act funds.'' ::''Shelley spokeswoman Caren Daniels-Meade defended Shelley's certification process, calling any suggestion of political manipulation "absolutely bunk." McCormack, Daniels-Meade said, simply disagrees with Shelley's support of a requirement that electronic voting machines have a verified paper trail.'' ::-- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 23:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) is the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials part of the International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers??? Because if it is I got a great connection. --User:Kizzle 00:52, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) Also, looks like there might be something more to it: :''Until California�s Secretary of State intervened earlier this month and decertified all touchscreen machines in the wake of serious failures encountered during the March primary election, she was planning to spend more than $100 million on a countywide Diebold touchscreen network. (CityBeat erroneously reported on April 29 that the $100 million had already been spent.) McCormack spoke to CityBeat in response to our report that she had asked Diebold to make software changes in L.A. County for last October�s recall election without getting the changes certified. She offered no denial of the charge that she had circumvented the legal requirement for certification; when pressed on the issue, she ended the conversation.'' :''Q:You are friends with Deborah Seiler, Diebold�s chief sales representative in California, and L.A. County is now buying equipment from Diebold. Is the friendship appropriate? :''A:I�ve had a long-term friendship with her. There�s nothing wrong with a friendship. Has it influenced my judgment? Of course not. In terms of the Diebold contract for L.A. County, I was not on the evaluation committee. I removed myself from that. But Diebold was the only vendor that met all the requirements for L.A. County. Sequoia wrote a letter saying it could not meet the requirements. And ES&S failed the demonstration, because it couldn�t handle seven languages. :''Q:Why are you against introducing a voter-verified paper trail? :''A:It�s a concept that hasn�t been tested, with the exception of two pilot projects in Sacramento and Wilton, Connecticut, both of which were appalling failures. The paper jammed, and the operators had to use coat hangers to try to unjam the equipment. It�s a concept that hasn�t been thought out thoroughly or tested thoroughly. If it could be proven to work, every registrar in the country would be fine with it. But our opinions are being discarded in favor of people like Kim Alexander. It�s a case of ready, fire, aim. It�s the wrong sequence for adopting a new process. (read the whole interview at [http://lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=942&IssueNum=51]) --User:Kizzle 01:19, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) Sorry to innundate you with links, I'm just getting all this great shit from different sources.... as for the above link between the two organizations, I didn't mention what the connection was, but the Election Center helps run the International clerks election officials association, look up black box voting book on www.blackboxvoting.org chapter 6, all about Election Center, chap 16 is also more about Election Center's connection with ITAA, some serious stuff. But here's a good starting point for Shelley info, its a DU thread: [http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=319613&mesg_id=319613] --User:Kizzle 02:49, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) :I've researched his situation fairly extensively and that thread is not among my faves (the letter itself sucks and is more generalized ranting than a review of Shelley's scenario) - the core threads are on the list I forwarded you, but it's good to see some ongoing activity nonetheless. I'll keep you posted. -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 03:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::You know, I was thinking about it yesterday... whether or not those charges were overblown or trumped up, lets assume for a moment they were all completely true. Not only the timing of the lawsuit in comparison to his de-certificaiton of Diebold is peculiar, but the fact that he mismanaged funds, his employees picked exactly that moment to come out against him as being a mean boss (can you really sue someone for that?), and for the ridiculous sexual harassment charges (otherwise known as yelling at a woman, or "not letting a woman into the same elevator") .... even if they were all true, it sure is a huge coincidence they happened at the same time. Do you happen to have a chronology of events by date in terms of when he de-certified the system, when he was placed under investigation, and when the other complaints were filed against him? --User:Kizzle 20:03, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) :::Not offhand, but here's an excellent sum up with lots of supporting links: [http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x341078] And yes indeed, the timing is suspect, even if true - although given the legal snares, his resignation under these threats is understandable. -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 00:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) == freeman wrote me back :) == Kevin: I'll try to look at your draft (smoke/exit_polls) over the weekend. I've written a good deal more since the early papers. Aside from the working papers and the book, I have written several newspaper and magazine articles, and been done many interviews. (Although none of the ones for the mainstream media have aired) Have you seen my webpage on election research/writing: www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep? After I look at your draft, I'll send you the working papers, but in the meantime, please take a look at my most recent article written February 16, 2005 for *In These Times*: "Exit Poll Report Suggests a Corrupted Election (despite what you may have heard)" http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1970/. Thanks, Steve -------------------------------------------------------------- Steven F. Freeman * Center for Organizational Dynamics * University of Pennsylvania * (215) 898-6967 * Fax: (215) 898-8934 * stfreema@sas.upenn.edu * www.organizationaldynamics.upenn.edu/center * www.appliedresearch.us/sf/ :Good stuff - very validating. I remember my first personal reply from Rep. Conyers... use the invigoration and the motivation to good end! -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 15:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==a vote you might be interested in== Talk:Links_between_Iraq_and_Al-Qaeda#Requested_move:_Links_between_Iraq_and_Al-Qaeda_.26rarr.3B_Alleged_links_between_pre-invasion_Iraq_and_Al-Qaeda User:Kevin_baas^{User_talk:Kevin_baas} 22:42, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC) btw, what did rep. conyers write you back? I got what seemed like a personal letter from sensennbrenner, after about my 4th letter to him, which you can see on my user page, letters to congressmen. It was a very short reply, basically saying, "i understand that you feel i have not addressed what you wrote me. i repeat that it is not my duty, responsibility, or place, to concern myself with these matters." i agree that it is not his place, and i'm glad he recognizes that. the next step is for him to get out of that place where he does not belong: to leave the white house. as an american citizen, i recognize that it is my duty, responsibility, and place, to concern myself with these matters, and to do everything within my powers to resolve them in favor of the general welfare and the basic rights of all americans. I fail to see how being a congressman would absolve me of this duty. anyways, sorry for the catharsis. i'm glad that i distracted him, at least. so what did conyers write? tell me! tell me! User:Kevin_baas^{User_talk:Kevin_baas} 22:56, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC) :That's an excellent response. I expected little else from him. Conyers was quite detailed in his response to a number of allegations I sent to him on Nov 4. A few made the report, but I hardly think I 'broke' the stories for him. I wrote him about my fundamental question: "Instead of all this talk about impropriety and irregularities in this election, I want to know how it is that this and the previous Congress so fundamentally failed at their core obligation: to ensure a peaceful, inviolate means of electing our representatives. Instead of focusing on fraud after it has occured, why couldn't Congress use HAVA in order to create a valid election?" His response was simple and clear... "We failed. There is no excuse, but I think the reason is clear... the voting industry is dominated by partisan interests who are seeking to consolidate power." -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 00:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:Conspiracy_theory#Voting_.28rename_vs_keep_as_is.29 User:Kevin_baas^{User_talk:Kevin_baas: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevin_baas&action=edit§ion=new new]} 21:49, 2005 May 6 (UTC) == disavowed == hehe, no I agree that they disavowed it, it was just the most nit-pickiest thing that you can't disavow something as something, you just disavow it, so maybe say that the pentagon has just disavowed it, but not disavowed it as "inaccurate"... basically i have too much time on my hands... but like i said, i'm not an english major so i could be wrong :)--User:Kizzle 06:32, May 5, 2005 (UTC) == "try harder" == Yeah, sorry about that. I was getting a little peeved with people not following the guidelines and allowing such entries to remain a whole month. I also wasn't in a great mood. Sorry :) (And I did look at the release, I searched for "new york" and "nyse", not finding those I concluded that was opinion on the part of the entry author, and not present in the release. Thanks for checking it.) --User:Golbez 03:29, May 6, 2005 (UTC) :Wait, I just looked at it and didn't find the word "anticompetitive". If you're citing another source, please use THAT as the external reference. Or am I not looking for the right thing? --User:Golbez 03:30, May 6, 2005 (UTC) ::Hey there thanks! - You were correc tthat the dissenting opinions (including those within the committee) would not be in the press release. No problem, I was referring to the text used in the Chris Pierce [http://www.ssga.com/library/esps/chrisricebestpricetradingrule20050415/page.html] ssga essay, which was reprinted and reused in a bunch of the money rags, but maybe we should just put a verbatim snippet in there instead from [http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/06/markets/sec_rule.reut/] from ::''Commissioners Paul Atkins and Cynthia Glassman voted against it and pledged to publish written dissents. (my emphasis added)'' ::''Reg NMS extends the trade-through rule across all markets for quotes on automated execution systems, but not for quotes available only on the slow, human-managed NYSE floor.'' ::''"Reg NMS may allow the New York Stock Exchange to take one step forward, but in doing so will drag the rest of the market backward," Atkins said, adding it "revives the spirit of the 1970s by continuing to experiment with market centralization.... It's time for us to shed the 1970s mentality."'' ::''Glassman called the measure "a massive intrusion" by government into the markets and said, "I actually think this is a sad day for the commission." '' -- User:RyanFreisling User talk:RyanFreisling 03:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC) == need help == What's up Ryan, don't know if you're back from your wikivacation yet, but just wanted some help on something. I'm currently fleshing out the voting machines section on my userpage, take a look at the organizational structure. I first introduce HAVA, give a brief primer on the different types of voting machines and the process from a voter touching the screen to the vote being added to the main count. My current version then goes directly into describing Diebold, which I have a frickin mountain of information. The only problem is, I'm discussing several different conclusions (like partisanship, insecurity, centralization of power over votes, lack of quality auditing procedure) which apply to all the other companies, so when I get to describing ES&S, I feel like I'll be repeating what I said before. But if I describe all the voting machines at one time, I feel that it will be too much information overload for the viewer, its somewhat better in my opinion to go through each company separately so that the viewer can digest the info. Also, keep me honest and tell me if you see anything that has been refuted/updated or is plain wrong. --User:Kizzle 20:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

RyanFreisling

Hello. I like science, and poetry. I'm a big Opera fan, and I play touch football and volleyball leagues. I like space and science too. ==Quotes== "''I've received your book and will waste no time reading it.''" :– Moses Hadas (1900 - 1966) "''I have read your book and much like it.'" :– Moses Hadas (1900 - 1966) "''This book fills a much-needed gap.''" :– Moses Hadas (1900 - 1966) More about me, my interests, etc., to come! ==More Help== *Wikipedia:Tutorial *Wikipedia:Help desk *M:Foundation issues *Wikipedia:Policy Library *Wikipedia:Utilities *Wikipedia:Cite your sources *Wikipedia:Verifiability *Wikipedia:Wikiquette *Wikipedia:Civility *Wikipedia:Conflict resolution *Wikipedia:Neutral point of view *Wikipedia:Pages needing attention *Wikipedia:Peer review *Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense *Wikipedia:Brilliant prose *Wikipedia:List of images *Wikipedia:Boilerplate text *Wikipedia:Current polls *Wikipedia:Mailing lists *Wikipedia:IRC channel

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

R

RA | RB | RC | RD | RE | RF | RG | RH | RI | RJ | RK | RL | RM | RN | RO | RP | RS | RT | RU | RW | RX | RY | RZ |

Words begining with RyanFreisling:

RyanFreisling
RyanFreisling
RyanFreisling/Opera
RyanFreisling/opera
RyanFreisling/SourceDigest