Really???
Ok... let's do a little review since you seem to have, accidentally or purposefully bypassed the facts. The discussion is that WikiP.D.A. is not quite truthful. The statement was made that if you edit one of their pet articles they will change it back. You came along and said someone should edit it since it's not all that difficult and if 'we' would supply 'you' with proof 'you' would undertake the task of proving 'us' wrong by editing the WikiP.D.A. article yourself.
As a reminder.. This is the WikiP.D.A. quote "However, just nine days before election day 2012, Robinson backtracked, admitting he was voting for Romney and a straight GOP ticket. [56]" with the [56] directing to the nonexistant link so the statement is unsourced. As it stands WikiP.D.A. is in error for two reasons. First they offer a nonexistent link as proof of their statement. Then they erroneously relate the time and contents of the statement, based on the link they provide. WikiP.D.A. is thus claiming that at the unavailable link we will find proof of their statement "However, just nine days before election day 2012, Robinson backtracked, admitting he was voting for Romney and a straight GOP ticket."
It has previously been noted that your 'found' link from FR dating to August does not say what WikiP.D.A. says it says, nor is the time frame correct since by most calendars August is considerably more than nine days from November. It has been noted that the now nonexistent TBL post that WikiP.D.A. cites as proof of the disputed statement was also posted in August, so the now nonexistent post from TBL could never have been a proper citation for the statement as reported by WikiP.D.A. The now nonexistent post on TBL from August does point to the FR post that you provide as proof of your claim. The problems with this proof have already been cited even though you cannot seen to grasp the differences in content and date.
Since I found the fingerprint of the now nonexistent TBL post, I'm sure you can too to observe that I am relating this properly, especially as to the date of posting as contradicting its use to prove a statement of 'nine days before'.
Now you add "and they have another post from October 27 ..." but you have provided no substantiating link, only a vague 'they'. Remember that saying is not citing except in straw arguments - then it's only valid if you can get someone to believe it. There are fools here on FR saying that they have photos of Ison heading towards Earth (one of the proofs 'they' offer was a much photoshopped photo of the Pleiades by the way so 'theys' don't get any credence here. Your mileage may vary.)
Now, heeping in mind the previous facts, please note that as the content now stands on WikiP.D.A. it is erroneous for the previously noted reasons. This substantiated the original claim that WikiP.D.A. is not quite truthful. That discussion is no longer on the table. Now suppose you were suddenly to find a post on FR that does state exactly what the WikiP.D.A. article says with a time frame that is close to or even exactly calendar correct, would that change the original premiss? (You know - WikiP.D.A. lies, er, is not quite truthful..)
Well in case you can't figure that out, the correct answer is "No". Why? Because WikiP.D.A. maintains an article with improper attestation and ascertation. (Reminder: WikiP.D.A. is not a forum presentation, but represents itself as encyclopaedic. If it were a forum, corrections are made by subsequent posts. In an encyclopedia, corrections are made by editing the erroneous text, so pointing out a straw argument that some older posts on a forum such as, oh, lets say FR, are now in error is not the same as making a similar claim about an encyclopedia.) IF you are able to find such a post that fits both the content parameters and the time parameters, you, based on your professed ability to edit WikiP.D.A. articles with easy are urged to do so. IF proper corrections are made, all that would be accomplished is that WikiP.D.A. is no longer lying, er, being less than truthful in THIS situation.
OUR original premise has been proved. I suggest that you get on the line promptly with your TBL buddies and dig up the proper information. It might after all be out there, but either way, WikiP.D.A. is in error. Unless and until you find 'their' post - which by implication you do not have access to - from FR on Oct. 27 or thereabouts and undertake to correct the WikiP.D.A. account, YOUR braggadocio of being able to edit with ease a WikiP.D.A. article will be regarded as torofeces. Unless and until you perform the above, and supply such information, no further communication will be necessary
The only thing I see that you’re bringing up is (1) the 9 days versus 78 days before the election ... and ... (2) voting the straight party-line ticket (or not).
The original thing that started this conversation for me was whether Jim Robinson changed his mind. It was either he did change his mind about voting for Romney - or he didn’t.
It’s already been shown that he did change his mind about voting for Romney - so that settles what started this particular conversation for me
NOW ... if you want to start up some more issues about (1) 9 days or 78 days before - and - (2) straight party-line or not party-line ... well ... have at it.
I personally don’t care — as I already got my original issue solved - as to whether Jim Robinson changed his mind about voting for Romney — he did change his mind.