User:Cgingold/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the perfect place to test out the cref/cnote system.#1note[›]

Contents

[edit] Reminders:

[edit] Investigation of possible voting fraud

In 2006, election officials in Florida opened an investigation of Coulter for filing an inaccurate voter registration form in June 2005.[1] She was investigated for but not charged with voting fraud for voting in the wrong precinct and registering with an address that did not belong to her in February 2006, which, as stated on the registration card, is a felony of the third degree and punishable by fines up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment for up to five years.[2]

She says that she did so due to fear of an alleged stalker. The charges were dropped without the investigating officer being able to interview her after FBI agent John Fitzgerald interceded on her behalf, stating that he was investigating the alleged stalker, whom he identified as longtime Coulter critic, and founder of Citizens for Principled Conservatism, Dan Borchers. Both local media and Borchers questioned this intercession by one of the FBI profilers (a profiler who had worked the Unabomber case).[3]

In 2006, Coulter was investigated for but not charged with voting fraud for voting in the wrong precinct and registering with an address that did not belong to her, a third-degree felony in Florida.[4]

  1. ^ "Ann Coulter says she won't cooperate in voting probe", Associated Press, November 1 2006. 
  2. ^ Florida Voter Registration Card
  3. ^ Lambiet, José (2007-05-11). FBI agent steps into Coulter voting case. Palm Beach Post. Retrieved on 2007-05-13.
  4. ^ "Ann Coulter says she won't cooperate in voting probe", Associated Press, November 1 2006. 

[edit] Interesting Users

[edit] Exchange re request for semi-protection

{{:la|Brit Hume}} Semi-protect - This article is being subjected to heavy blatant vandalism by multiple anon. IPs. Probably needs permanent protection because it does not appear to have any established editors looking out for vandalism (it's not on my watchlist) - recent edit history shows nearly all edits have been by anon. IPs, mostly for vandalism. Cgingold 21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There is also no evidence of reversions and only 4 edits in the last 3 days. Cbrown1023 talk 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Apparently you didn't bother to look at the actual edits, or you would understand how nonsensical your reply was. Of course you didn't see "evidence of reversions" - that was exactly why I took time out of my day to report the problem and request protection: because there is nobody looking out for this article. Obviously I wasted my time.
As I said, the article wasn't on my watchlist -- and I have no intention of adding it. I already keep an eye on a very large number of articles, and frankly, I don't have any serious personal interest in protecting Brit Hume from vandalism. If you don't give a hoot about protecting Wikipedia from vandalism by anon. IPs, maybe you should let somebody else do the job. Cgingold 08:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another declined request

{{la|Book burning}} Semi-protection. - Because of its unusually large number of subsections, this article presents a special problem in terms of reverting vandalism by anon. IPs. After vandalism has taken place, most of the editors who come along are only looking at the particular subsection that they are editing, and not paying any attention to the previous edits, which therefore get lost in the shuffle, with nobody even realizing that parts have been vandalized. I just had to spend nearly an hour of my time cleaning up the most recent mess. I have hundreds of articles watchlisted, so I can't do that on a regular basis. Please give this article the protection it requires. Thank you! Cgingold 04:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Declined While I sympathize with the difficulties of repairing vandalism on an article with many subsections, the overall level of vandalism is actually quite low and there are positive contributions coming from some anons. What this article really needs is watchlisting by more people. —dgiestc 06:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content notes

^ #1note: apparently, it works