Talk:2006 United States Senate election in Vermont

message: due to spamming of campaing phone numbers.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprotected 

message: I saw on the Politics RfC noticeboard that there was an open Request for Comment on this article. The question is whether the push polling accusation is appropriate for inclusion based on the single source. There's an ancillary question as to whether the information about the publisher's cohabitation, verified by calling a Vermont state office, is appropriate for inclusion. Let me answer as best as I can.
*Vermont has a long history of a respected independent press. However, a circulation number of 30,000 in a small state does not necessarily imply reliability per Wikipedia guidelines (which are found in WP:RS. I did a Google search using several terms, looking for accusations of bias. I found one marginal accusation of bias by the Media Research Center, a notoriously unreliable (to be charitable) source. Even the Vermont GOP (based on the summary of the page I was able to read, given that the page was down) seem to use them as a source. However, the only other sources for Seven Days' story seem to be one other alternative newspaper and a whole host of blogs. It's an extraordinary claim, not reported on by sources with a history of and reputation for fact-checking. As such, if this claim is to be reported, it needs to be stressed in the main text that the sole source for the allegations is a few small, alternative newspapers. I think it would be better if the claim were not to be included at all; there's no particular reason why Wikipedia needs to be at the forefront of news reporting on this issue.
*The cohabitation issue is original research, which is strictly prohibited. Until a reliable source publishes the information and comments on it, it shall remain original research. No attempt should be made to include the information under any circumstance whatsoever, until an impeccable source reports on the information. This especially remains true because of our policy on biographies of living persons; revelation of personally identifying information should only be done when it is of great encyclopedic merit. I want to make this very clear - including the information on the publisher's cohabitation is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Don't do it.
*As a final note, remember to assume good faith on the part of fellow editors, and do not make personal attacks. Cool down, guys. It's just an encyclopedia. Are you getting paid to edit? Will you be lauded until the end of days for your stellar contributions to human knowledge? If the answer to both of those questions is "no" (which it will be), then calm down, relax, and don't let the discourse on Wikipedia mirror the discourse in our nation's capital. Real feelings could be hurt. Captainktainer * Talk 04:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion based on RfC 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States Senate election in Vermont, 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/20060811023259/http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/August%202006/VermontGovernorSenate.htm to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/August%202006/VermontGovernorSenate.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060620073256/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/May%202006/VTGovernorSenate.htm to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/May%202006/VTGovernorSenate.htm
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) 12:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, all I have changed the results from an Independent hold to a pickup from the Republicans. the reasoning for this is that along Senator Jeffords defected in 2001 he was elected as part of the GOP ticket in 2000 and so the chnage from 2000 was then an Independent had made a pickup from a seat that 6 years prior had elected a Republican candidate for the senate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottish socialist (talk • contribs) 01:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gain from Republicans