Talk:Hart InterCivic

Press release?

Several parts of this read like they were copied verbatim from a press release.  Randall Bart   Talk  21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletions by ‎Plichtenheld

A new user, ‎Plichtenheld, has a misunderstanding about wikipedia policies and is deleting sourced, NPOV from this article because he/she considers it "biased." It is negative, but as mentioned it is sourced and stated NPOV. ‎Plichtenheld please discuss why you believe this material violates specific policies of Wikipedia. Thanks!Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Jytdog and ‎Plichtenheld, I made some additions and modifications. I understand your point Jytdog of if its out there it is fact (or Wiki worthy), and that is not necessarily true since sources like The Nation are unabashed anti-Republican sites, but both arguments I feel now are presented (I even included a source as far right as The Nation is as far left). I admire the zeal on both ends and hint of potential conspiracy but Wiki is not a crystal ball so let's just present the middle ground. I did not remove any of your latest edits, just rephrased a couple. And for the record I'm a fan of Clinton too but Wiki is not for Obama and Romney slants. Also I fixed the formatting of the sources to give those writers their due. --Monstermike99 (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in. My edits did not present any conspiracy and drew no conclusions that the Romney campaign might try to influence the outcome of the election. The edits were neither pro-Romney nor pro-Obama. Plitchenfield was out of line for deleting sourced information. I do not agree at all that "if it is out there it is fact." Facts are facts; bullshit is bullshit. The "newsbusters" site you introduced is not an acceptable source - I replaced it with the cleveland.com source which seems reasonably well balanced and itself well sourced. Since you objected to the Nation, I replaced it with the Boston Globe article cited it the Cleveland.com article. Thank you also for the reference formatting. Thanks again, overall!Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Cool, we are on the same page and I wasn't implying you thought it was a grand conspiracy, just the angle the writers were taking on both counts. Pleasure doing Wiki with you. --Monstermike99 (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous Vandals

Thank you Jytdog for your actions on the states. I only included the other to counter the obvious Democrat schill who labeled Ohio and Colorado (alleged swing states) to fuel the conspiracy in case of loss. --Monstermike99 (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I see, I hadn't thought of that. You know, I looked at this article b/c I had heard about members of HIG's donations to, and efforts to raise money for, the Romney campaign. I am in business, and I have to say that those HIG guys are dim bulbs. Here is why. If you invest in a voting machine company, you do it because you want to sell a lot of voting machines and make money. If you want to sell a lot of them, you want your buyers to think that the machines and company are great and fit the buyers' needs. You have competitors and you don't want to do anything to hurt your chances to make a sale. So, if I am a voting commissioner and have to make a decision, and I do some research, and find out that this company is owned and directed by people who are partisan, I think about my political career, and I buy somebody else's voting machines. (I am sure that existing contracts with voting jurisdictions have no "out" in case Hart sullies its own reputation, so current contracts are surely not being terminated - and at least that business remains). But this involvement with candidates is just plain stupid for business when you sell voting machines. Additionally, the next thought just comes... will the company try to tamper with the election? The HIG crew has already shown that they are idiots with respect to the business of selling voting machines, right? So how far will their idiocy go? The company is privately owned, with HIG having a controlling interest... so there are a limited number of shareholders to whom the board is accountable and liability on that end is limited. So there would seem to be some risk of tampering. I hope that they are not going there, and if they do I hope that the CEO and employees of the company are honorable people, and I hope that election monitors will be watching these machines closely. Anyway it is foolish to jump to conclusions that Hart will actually try to do something, but the risk is there, and that is just so unfortunate, all around. Not good for Hart's business, not good for our democracy. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As long as we discuss this on the Talk page and not have yahoo's on either side start manipulating the neutrality of what Wiki was meant to protect and serve the users with, as you said earlier, with facts and not opinions. I'm glad you have this on your watchlist too. If they hit again I will get the entry protected so we don't have to deal with these vandals. --Monstermike99 (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Unlikely we can get protection, though.. article has to be vandalized a few times a day to get that, and we are not there.Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Partisans at it again

Jytdog they are gearing up, heads we Democrats wins and tails you lose. Not for Wiki. They have blogs for people like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monstermike99 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a wikilink added, which seems to be a valid and nonpartisan thing to do.. stay calm! Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hart InterCivic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121029185006/http://www.hartintercivic.com/pages/447 to http://www.hartintercivic.com/pages/447

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hart InterCivic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817092350/http://www.hartic.com/ to http://www.hartic.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)