Talk:2006 United States Senate election in Virginia

message: The article was clearly written about 2 months ago so i updated the info for the race.
--James E. Martin
Someone added that Sabato refuted the rumors... Can we get a citation?
--James E. Martin
Cleaned up the language of the Ethnic Community Rally. joshua. 17:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning Up 

message: I don't know why this page keeps "moving" or what exactly the naming convention should be, but "Virginia Senate election, 2006" is absolutely the wrong name for this article because Virginia has both U.S. Senators and a state senate.  The current title implies that it should be about 2006 Virginia state senate campaigns (and is inconsistent with every other article about a Senate race). --Ajdz 00:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name changing 

message: Harris Miller is not a "hi-tech" executive as he portrays himself.  In fact, his understanding of the internet is extremely basic.  He was/is an immigration lobbyist brought in by the ITAA to increase the amount of H-1b visas issued, outsource certain hi-tech jobs, and generally reduce workers' wages.  This is common knowledge among hi-tech workers.  For this reason I have added the word "immigration" in front of the job title lobbyist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmond Democrat (talk • contribs) 
:Do you have a good source for that "common knowledge"?  Self-portrayal is probably more accurate than rumors and the last time I saw that kind of change was a recent series of edits to his bio that looked like they came from his primary opponent's campaign. --Ajdz 02:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immigration Lobbyist 

message: According to the article:
"In a July 28 Rasmussen poll, Parker, who calls herself a common-sense conservative, appeared to be within the 15% threshold to get into the two scheduled live TV debates"
I've looked at the poll in question and it doesn't mention Parker at all. In fact, only the two SurveyUSA polls include her, and she only has 2% in each - hardly near 15%. 
Seleucus 01:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent Greens 

message: The text change was me finalizing the move of this passage from George Felix Allen to this article to avoid undue weight in Allen's article as well as stopping duplication of information. Now the section is fully here, and only summarized there. If any information was lost in the transition, feel free to add it back in.--Rosicrucian 21:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macaca Controversy 

message: Here's a recent article on this campaign that contains some new polling data.  I'm too busy to add the information in now, but I will do it later if no one else gets to it first.  
12.4.123.125 13:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info  

message: Ma ca ca, the edits you have don't seem to be well supported by the source you have provided.  This source doesn't say that he apologized because of the term's widespread usage on Google.  Perhaps try rewording somewhat, to make it sound less like original research.  Also, I think the Google search is superfluous information; maybe if you could find a before/after search frequency for "Macaca" or for "George Felix Allen", that might be more relevant, but I'm still not sure if it would be relevant enough. Ufwuct 14:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Macaca and associated socks have just been indef blocked for vandalism and attack articles regarding George Allen.--Rosicrucian 17:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits regarding google search 

message: When the quote was deleted in the rally section, what was remaining seemed to be floating without providing any context.  I've added back a small part of the quote, plus the quote of another supporter, plus information on the protesters, plus 2 quotes from the protesters.  This seems to be pretty balanced.  It shows that two people (both minorities, though I left this part out) support George Allen despite his gaffe.  It also shows that people protested the rally, one of whom did not believe Allen's attempts were sincere or genuine.
If Allen's poll numbers change because of this rally or if it generates any substantial new development, we could probably add that, but the section seems sufficiently detailed for now. Thanks. Ufwuct 18:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rally

message: To keep this article balanced, I've added in a fairly interesting Webb incident regarding his recent campaign ads.--Rosicrucian 03:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also added the recent controversy and subsequent appology of Webb regarding the "Women Can't Fight" article he wrote in 1979. There is a reason this will be a very acrimonious and close race, and while Allen is riddled with scandal, Webb won't have an easy time of it either.--Rosicrucian 19:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nancy Reagan, "Women Can't Fight" 

message: Someone should add information from the recent Meet the Press debate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Remember (talk • contribs) 13:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did my best to summarize.--Rosicrucian 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meet the Press 

message: While I can appreciate broadening this section to address Allen's remarks as well, we need to follow the WP:MOS for the references added. If nobody else manages to clean it up, I'll try to do so this evening if I can find the time.--Rosicrucian 15:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've finally gotten a chance to tidy it up. I trimmed the new material significantly, as much of it was copyvio from Webb's campaign site blog and/or the Media Matters article.--Rosicrucian 15:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women in the Military Controversy 

message: I took out the following: 
Three former teamates say Allen called blacks N*ggers
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/24/allen_football/
because all it did was add a link and not state anything but an inflamatory header.  I'm not saying that this information shouldn't be on the page, but it should be written out in some form in case the link becomes broken.  I don't have time to fix this, so if someone could type this up in some form, I would appreciate it.  I will check back later and help out if I can. Remember 02:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three former teamates say Allen called blacks N*ggers 

message: For the women in the military section... the quotes by Allen ("should not be in foxholes", etc.) should reference the original article (The Washington Post Robb's True Colors on Defense Showing, Allen Says; GOP Challenger Woos Veterans With Funding And Flag Amendment Author: Craig Timberg Date: Oct 9, 2000 Start Page: B.07 Section: METRO Document Types: News Text Word Count: 696) rather than a biased secondary or tertiary source (Media Matters). Contrary to popular belief, we are actually allowed to use non-web based sources. And a neutral one, The Post, is always better than one with a stated bias. Thanks... --198.185.18.207 17:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  Why don't you change it to include that citation.  That being said I think it is also nice to have a link to the actual article or excerpt from it so that those without access to the Washington Post's archive can check out the article for themselves.  Remember 18:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the link where this info is here or maybe here, but I have no idea if either is just clickable to get there. I had to search the archives. The quote does not appear in the preview, however. You can see the google archive search results here. --198.185.18.207 18:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-biased source... 

message: Could an endorsements section be added (for both candidates)? I have noticed this on other Senate race pages, like the PA one . 208.200.11.155H
:Sure, why not?  Just don't include Republicans, Democrats, and respective party organizations who are endorsing their own - it's not noteworthy, for example, that (say) Hilary Clinton would endorse Jim Webb, or that George Bush (either of them) would endorse Geroge Allen.   John Broughton  |  Talk 16:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endorsements? 

message: Can someone explain why this matters enough to be included?  It's not a material difference and anyone smart enough to vote ought to be able to figure it out.  What makes it encyclopedic, other than the faint odor of a conspiracy theory? Dubc0724 20:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say this merits inclusion in the Wikipedia article not so much because of the material of the issue as its notability.  There's only one source cited in the article section, but the issue has gotten a fair amount of publicity (aside from the WaPo, it's been covered in Time, ZDnet, the Charlottesville Daily Progress, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Roanoke News, as well as an Associated Press article carreid in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other papers, etc.) I think the considerable attention it's received makes it a bona fide controversy within the scope of this election. Schi 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess I agree about the publicity.  But does a newspaper's effort to sell papers during Election Week merit its inclusion in the encyclopedia?  I guess, I'm just asking, what's the BFD with the truncation? Dubc0724 20:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue itself is noteworthy in this particular election (especially if it ends up having some sort of effect), but maybe the inclusion in the controversy section implies that there is some sort of malevolent force at work, which there is no evidence of.  Truthfully, this seems to belong more in an article about technical problems with voting machines. Remember 20:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Webb's name truncated on ballots 

message: Get ready for another controversy section.  CNN just had video of Allen aids manhandling someone who tried to ask him heckling questions.  Allen was in a hotel lobby when the person tried to approach Allen.  Several staffers pushed and shoved him to the ground.  We'll probably have stories at the major news sites within the next hour or two. --StuffOfInterest 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you get your Wikipedia and Huffington Post bookmarks mixed up again? Dubc0724 20:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the video .  Can't tell from this if there was anything damaging.  It just appears as if some (supposidly Allen supporters) were trying to remove the man from the scene, he wouldn't cooperate and it got a little heated.  But I don't see how this should reflect on the campaign at all. Remember 20:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still even remains to be seen if they were Allen's staffers (as is being reported), or just Allen supporters (as is also being reported). There is a big difference between the two. --198.185.18.207 21:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It really depends on how it plays out in the media.  If nothing more comes of it then it certainly isn't worth mentioning, which is why things like this should be discussed on the talk page first.  If it gathers steam, then it may warrant mention.  So far, Associated Press has picked it up, but that could well be the end of it.  We'll have to see how (or if) the Washington Post handles it tomorrow. --StuffOfInterest 21:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Would you like to expand on that, Dubc0724?  And please keep WP:CIVIL in mind. --StuffOfInterest 21:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a little humor.  Guess it wasn't appreciated.  My apologies. Dubc0724 13:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone tried to add this information to the George Allen entry.  I deleted it because I thought it would be more appropriate for this article and we were still debating whether it was noteworthy.  Any other opinions? Remember 03:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it belongs anywhere it is in this article and not the candidate articles as it is definitely a campaign issue.  As for whether to include it at all, I'm drawn both ways.  It did get picked up by the Washington Post this morning , but back at page 8 of the A section.  The Associated Press is still putting our versions of the story.  My concern is that within two days the story will be gone and forgotten, in which case it probably isn't worth putting in the article.  I'd say we hold off for a day or two to see if anything else develops.  The reference links are here, so we can always get back to the stories to build something later. --StuffOfInterest 12:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm... I still don't see a lot of controversy here. Some dude yelled some stuff, some other dudes tackled him. Neither (it seems now) were really connected with the campaigns of Allen or Webb, just supporters of them. It is an interesting tidbit, but nothing really notable. If anything, I still think it's too early to include. Perhaps if and when charges are pressed, and the entire story is told, it might pass notability, but for now, it's just another random story. Now if Allen had tackled the dude himself... now that would have been newsworthy! ;-) Thoughts? --198.185.18.207 14:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally newsworthy, imo.  The person was not a heckler.  The person had attended a rally that was open to the public, had sat respectfully and quietly all through the comments by Allen, Dole and others, and rose to ask a question at the appointed time.  The person is a Virginia resident and contituent of George Allen.  After the initial question, which Allen REFUSED to answer, the person followed along with the other reporters to ask his question again.  Unlike the other reporters, however, several individuals (two with the area GOP and one with Allen's campaign) shoved this person and denied him access where others were not likewise denied.  When the person tried to get in position to ask a question, he was shoved and subsequently wrestled to the ground.  All of this occurred within feet of the Senator, who made no comment and did nothing to stop the attack on one of his constituents.  If that's not newsworthy I don't know what is.  Moreover, the characterization of this person as a "protester" or a "heckler" is inaccurate in that he was not protesting and did not heckle during Allen's remarks.  This controversy should be included if for no other reason than WP allows a forum to set the record straight when the mainstream media erroneously gets it wrong. Rena 19:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And hate to break it to you, RenaRF, that's not actually what WP is for. It is an encyclopedia. Nothing more. It isn't some "cool new way to fight the power", or place to document "all the stories the MSM is too biased to report." Encyclopedia. I know it's a tough concept. Thanks. --198.185.18.207 20:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Rena, have you watched the video []?  I'm personally rooting for Webb based on my personal political views (and especially after the macaca comment), but the law student was totally acting inappropriately.  He was yelling what basically amounts to obscenities at a public official, in a very unprofessional manner.  So it's not really surprising that people thought he was a weirdo and it might not be safe for him to remain in the building. Jonemerson 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You're 100% right, but I suspect we'll see it in the article by the weekend.  Dubc0724 14:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe it beacame a campaign issue when Allen accused Webb of orchestrating it.  Before that I did consider it not likely to be worthy of inclusion but when Allen made an issue out of it, while making no statement regarding how his supported handled it, then the issue gained prominence. --StuffOfInterest 15:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with StuffOfInterest.  The significant media play along with Allen's response has made it noteworthy.  I don't think there should be a large section on this.  Just a brief not of its occurence, Allen's response and links to the articles about this. Remember 16:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manhandling of heckler 

message: There seems to be conflicting and inaccurate information about Virginia's policy on recounts for 1% or 0.5% differences between candidate results. First, here is the relevant Code of Virginia:
* "When there is between any candidate apparently nominated or elected and any candidate apparently defeated a difference of not more than one percent of the total vote cast for the two such candidates as determined by the State Board or the electoral board, the defeated candidate may appeal from the determination of the State Board or the electoral board for a recount of the vote as set forth in this article."
** 
* "When the contest is decided, costs shall be taxed against the candidate filing the complaint if he is unsuccessful, or, if he is successful, against the counties and cities included in the area in which the election was held."
** 
(See Title 24.2 - ELECTIONS: Chapter 8 - Recounts and Contested Elections for the overall Virginia Code on recounts.) There is no mention that I found in the Code that says anything about 0.5% differences or state-funded recounts. I did find two relevant statements in another document mentioned at Virginia State Board of Elections : Election Laws:
* "In Virginia, there are no automatic recounts. Only the apparent losing candidate can ask for a recount, and only if the difference between the apparent winning and losing candidate is 1% or less of the total votes cast for the two candidates." [emphasis mine]
** 
* "The counties and cities involved in a recount are responsible for paying the costs of the recount if the margin of difference between the apparent winning and losing candidates is a half of a percent or less or the candidate requesting the recount is declared the winner. Otherwise, the candidate who requested the recount must pay the costs of the proceedings." [emphasis mine]
** ibid, last paragraph
Summarizing, there is no automatic recount, but the apparent loser can get the local jurisdictions, not the state, to pay if the difference drops to 0.5%. The problem is that, although this seems to be a State Board of Elections document, I couldn't find any mention in the Code of Virginia for this policy. Does anyone know what legal basis this statement has? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media errors about Virginia recount law 

message: I just heard a story on NPR explaining the three "missing" precincts on the unofficial count site - one was because the workers couldn't open the machine to count the ballots (I assume that's been rectified now), one was because of some computer wierdness creating an entry for a non-existant precinct, and one was because half of a precinct was somehow created underwater (so I assume they just split that half into a separate non-precinct?).  It's probably a little late to add into the article at this stage, but I'd still like to find the story again; does anyone know where it might be? —AySz88\^-^ 00:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The three missing precincts 

message: I would like to move the Allegations of Allen's use of racial slur in college section of George Allen (U.S. politician) into this article.  I believe that these allegations are more relevant to the election campaign than in George Allen's lifelong  biography.  The biography page is getting very large, and I don't think these allegations warrant 10 paragraphs of text there.  But they do make sense here.  Any thoughts? Jonemerson 04:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it makes sense to me. Schi 07:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can see the point, but let's not exaggerate the impact on Allen's article. It's one paragraph of four sentences, not 10 paragraphs. It shouldn't have a major impact on either article. (Wherever it goes, I'd be tempted to include it in a more general section of purported racial slurs, culminating in the more widely reported "macaca" incident. I don't see that each incident requires its own section.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jeff, it looks like someone already trimmed it down before you read it :).  (And they didn't copy it over here -- oh well.) Jonemerson 21:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sheesh! I see what you meant now. Looks like someone had gotten a little too involved in detail for a general biographical article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of Allen's use of racial slur in college 

message: Allen's name is currently misspelled in the current paragraph. Someone who can commit the page should fix this error. Thanks. Paradoxian 23:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you meant the 2nd paragraph of the lead section. I've fixed it. Thanks for the heads-up. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misspelling 

message: I don't want to create an account to fix this, but the Washington Post article that is cited where Sen.-elect Webb opposes a war in Iraq is listed as September, 4 2003 (which would be after the war had occured) instead of the correct 11/4/2002. Please can someone change this. thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.254.57.22 (talk • contribs).
:I've fixed it. schi talk 19:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Date 

message: I have heard that Allen responded to questions about his Jewish ancestry by saying something along the lines of "How dare you cast aspersions?" but I have not seen a direct quote or citation.
Anyone got any info on this, with a source, and if so should it be added to that section?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.99.11.50 (talk • contribs).
:The WaPo article ref'd for Allen's response also mentions his "making aspersion" comment, I just added it to the article. schi talk 19:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Casting Aspersions" 

message: I edited the header to the section, because Stark is not a "reporter". I changed it to blogger, for lack of a better term, but if someone has a better characterization, feel free. But Stark is NOT a reporter. Also there was an unsourced claim that Stark filed charges, but the charges were dropped. I removed it, mainly because it was unsourced, but also because civilians do not file charges. They file complaints, and the district atty. decides whether or not to file actual charges. I would be surprised if the DA filed charges, and then dropped them, but since there is no source, we have no idea what the real deal is, but I am fairly certain that the sentence that I removed is technically inaccurate. Crockspot 21:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stark section

message: Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macaca moment, it is suggested that Macaca moment be merged into the Allen's macaca controversy section of this article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the merge proposal. Jonemerson 06:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion per AfD  

message: Is this article correct in that the Macaca controversy centred solely around the word Macaca? Considering the wider context of the comments, it seems to me that regardless of what he may have intended by the Macaca name (and given the context it likely was a racial slur) his little blurb on Sidarth was racist. At the end he said "welcome to America" which was obviously offensive (Sidarth is an American so why welcome him to America) and likely racist. Am I the only one who is doubtful he would have said this of Sidarth was white? Was the really no consideration of the reference in a wider context? (I should add he went on to refer to the war on terror just after that) 203.109.240.93 06:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if this is relevant or not, but I find it interesting that the article mentions that Sen. Webb's mother is a 'pied-noir'.  If I'm not mistaken, isn't that a term used to refer to darker-skinned African people of mixed ancestry and is sometimes used a hate word or slur?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.153.56 (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why just Macaca 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "mtp0817" :
** 
** 
DumZiBoT (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States Senate election in Virginia, 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/20110926230456/http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/ElectionResults/2006/JunePrimary/index.htm to http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/ElectionResults/2006/JunePrimary/index.htm
*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
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070107160928/http://www.rasmussenreports.com:80/2006/State%20Polls/November%202006/virginiaSenate.htm to http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/November%202006/virginiaSenate.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070103104005/http://www.rasmussenreports.com:80/2006/State%20Polls/October%202006/virginiaSenate1029.htm to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/October%202006/virginiaSenate1029.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070720165048/http://dscc.org/news/roundup/20061030_newpoll/index.htm to http://dscc.org/news/roundup/20061030_newpoll/index.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061102060755/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/October%202006/virginiaSenate1024.htm to http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/October%202006/virginiaSenate1024.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061019215732/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/October%202006/VirginiaSenate1012.htm to http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/October%202006/VirginiaSenate1012.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061008165608/http://www.rasmussenreports.com:80/2006/State%20Polls/October%202006/VirginiaSenate.htm to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/October%202006/VirginiaSenate.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061021124416/http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/September%202006/VirginiaSenate.htm to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/September%202006/VirginiaSenate.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.mason-dixon.com/news_text.cfm?news_id=257
*Added  tag to http://www.mason-dixon.com/news_text.cfm?news_id=255
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060922110511/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/July%202006/virginiaSenate.htm to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/July%202006/virginiaSenate.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060621061223/http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/June%202006/virginiasenate061606.htm to http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/June%202006/virginiasenate061606.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060421161735/http://www.rasmussenreports.com:80/2006/State%20Polls/April%202006/Virginia%20Senate%20April.htm to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/April%202006/Virginia%20Senate%20April.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060618032203/http://www.rasmussenreports.com:80/2006/State%20Polls/March%202006/Virginia%20Senate%20March.htm to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/March%202006/Virginia%20Senate%20March.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060223005917/http://www.rasmussenreports.com:80/2006/State%20Polls/February%202006/Virginia%20Senate%20February.htm to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/February%202006/Virginia%20Senate%20February.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060929010109/http://virginia.va.lwvnet.org/files/us_senate_voters_guide_nov_2006.pdf to http://virginia.va.lwvnet.org/files/us_senate_voters_guide_nov_2006.pdf#search=%22Virginia%20Senate%20candidate%20guide%22
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) 12:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on United States Senate election in Virginia, 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20130125091319/http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2006G.html to http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2006G.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060906094639/http://www.miller2006.org/content.jsp?content_KEY=1390 to http://www.miller2006.org/content.jsp?content_KEY=1390
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20020905172652/http://www.sbe.vipnet.org/ to http://sbe.vipnet.org/
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) 11:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified