Talk:2006 United States Senate election in Maryland

message: Since Daniel Vovak doesn't seem to read edit summaries, I thought I would make some things clear here, instead.
* Indicating that Michael Steele is the foremost Republican candidate is not biased, but accurate and fully informational.
* Michael Steele is all but unchallenged for the Republican nomination, which if anything is why no polls have been run, or else there would be completely material to suppport this statement, in addition to many, many professional analyses. Steele is receiving a great sum of GOP funding, and received personal calls from both Rove and Cheney asking for his entry into the race.   Also, virtually every article commenting upon the race specifically notes the lack of competition for the Republican nomination (and I pull these citations from your own cite):      Wikipedia is a tertiary source, meaning it provides the results of an apparent consensus (or lack thereof) among other sources, not original content and analysis. If you'd like to editorialize, go to Everything2.
* You are a candidate in this race, and should not be making substantial edits to this article or any other that relates to the race or its candidates. I would venture to say that you shouldn't even be editing the article on yourself, in accordance with Wikipedia standards. OFearwig 14:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit wars and such

message: Wikipedia is also not supposed to be about suppressing facts, which Steele supporters have been caught red handed doing. I'm open to making my edits less POV, but I won't stand for your blatant suppression of the facts.24.50.44.154 02:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Suppressing Coverage of the Republican Primary?

message: Okay, ignore what I said in the edit notes--apparently the deletion verdict on the Zeese article was a redirect, didn't mention whether a merge was worthwhile, but in the context of the race I have to say notability is absolutely not a problem, and it was general notability that sealed the original article's fate. If the material needs cleaning up, I'm all for it, but we should keep whatever candidate information we can. No reason to be exclusionary. And yes, this is coming from a staunch Mfume supporter. Fearwig 15:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kevin Zeese

message: Again, I'd prefer we discuss this rather than edit back and forth (Tomf688). "Undue weight" is given to a candidate when additional information is provided, but it is equally possible for all candidates to have information included about them in the article, should someone who knows about them see it fit to add that information. That's how this sort of article has to work. Now, since these people aren't all significant enough for individual articles, it's only appropriate that additional information be included here instead.Fearwig 21:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much text for lesser candidates? 

message: Hello, I have not been following the progression of this page but this article on CNN caught my eye "GOP group's campaign ad says Democrats started KKK"-in particular the part at the end where it notes "Race is a prominent theme in the Maryland race for the seat held by retiring Democrat Paul Sarbanes. Steele, the first black candidate elected statewide in Maryland, faces a white Democrat in a heavily Democratic state with the highest percentage of black residents -- 29 percent -- of any state outside the South." In reading the article, I don't neccessarily see that listed as a "prominent theme". Obviously it needs to be delicately treated for NPOV concerns but I'm curious what this pages editors think? Agne 23:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this merit inclusion? 

message: In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that my wife is a prominent staffer on the Kevin Zeese campaign.  I will keep my edits to minor changes like linking, grammar, and formatting.  If there is something substantial to be changed, I'll make sure to bring it up here first for discussion.
: Ardvaark 00:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Disclosure 

message: Since the first three-way debate was held last night at the Baltimore Urban League, I propose adding a section for the debates describing the attendees, format, and topics discussed.
Thoughts?
: Ardvaark 14:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate Subsection? 

message: What's the +/- change column for?
: Ardvaark 23:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally on Wikipedia that column represents the change since the last election.  In this case I'm not sure if it's comparing against the last MD Senate race (i.e. when Mikulski was re-elected in '04) or the last time this seat was up (i.e. when Sarbanes was re-elected in '00). --Jfruh (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Column 

message: I found these images of the misleading fliers and believe they should be included. As political campaign material, can they be copyrighted? Common sense tells me no, but I don't see any place for such a license on the Upload File page. 
As for the source, it is questionable, but the Washington Post posted a lower resolution copy of the cover here, and the other pages match the text descriptions printed here and elsewhere.
--Matt 03:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be appropriate to link to the images.  If you use footnotes (ref tags) rather than just an embedded links, you can add "(low resolution)" and "(high resolution)" to the footnote information, so that readers can confirm that the high resolution image (again, not hosted on Wikipedia) is authentic.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 19:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flier images 

message: Why is there no sub-section in the "Controversies" section on the controversy that opened up over an advert that Michael J. Fox made in support of Ben Cardin and against Steele's stance on stem cell research?  This was one of the biggest controversies of this election and the only one that made national headlines (or at least the largest one).
One of the Ben Cardin's biggest constituencies is the medical-research industry in Baltimore and so it was natural for him to support stem cell research as it makes that industry more competitive and so more able to bring more jobs and greater prosperity to Baltimore and MD as a whole.  While Michael Steele's religious views, and the religious views of most of his supporters, made him make statements against stem cell research.  The Cardin campaign responded with an advertisement featuring Michael J. Fox endorsing stem cell research.  The advert was criticized by conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh for "faking it" and being overly emotive. David Montgomery, "Rush Limbaugh On the Offensive Against Ad With Michael J. Fox", Washington Post, October 25, 2006 "Ad: "Michael J. Fox TV Ad", Washington Post, retrieved April 28, 2008"Opponents react to Michael J. Fox stem-cell ad: Sports stars, actors say 'Don't be deceived'", Associated Press, October 25, 2006
Please advise, if I do not hear from any one about this in due time I will update it myself.  Thanks and regards,
--Discott (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable to me. Ardvaark (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine; please note that I've improved your citations (a naked URL doesn't comply with WP:CITE).  Also, the link to youtube is unnecessary; the second Washington Post citation includes a link to the ad, and that's a much better way to get to it.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 21:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stem-cell/Michael J. Fox Controversy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States Senate election in Maryland, 2006. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070224182734/http://elections.us.reuters.com:80/top/news/usnN01194336.html to http://elections.us.reuters.com/top/news/usnN01194336.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States Senate election in Maryland, 2006. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.joewerner.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060622224926/http://progressivemaryland.org/files/public/images/SteeleHuggingBush051130.jpg to http://progressivemaryland.org/files/public/images/SteeleHuggingBush051130.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified