Talk:2006 United States Senate election in Connecticut

message: I liked it much better when each company polling was separated, as each company has different methodologies, thus aggregating them together doesn't really give a good timeline.  Instead, if we separate them into company (and thus similar methodology), we can at least identify trend lines.  I'm going to change in a bit if no one else has a problem. --kizzle 17:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I find the separated polling sections harder to read. Each polling company is already identified in the first column, anyway. --JHP 15:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kizzle on this. Each polling company has different methodologies and including them all in one table introduces trends lines that are not correct.  While all of the latest polling shows Lieberman with a lead, the chronological ordering of the polls on a single table make it appear that on August 17, Lieberman had a 12 point lead but a week later on August 21 and 22 he had a 2 point lead, and then a week after that it was a 10 point lead. 10 point swings like that are more likely due to different methodologies than any actual swings. The first column is more to cite the source than to repeat the name. We could technically make it a ref tag next to the date, which would remove that redundancy. --Bobblehead 15:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition, the Florida, New York, Ohio, and Virginia polling sections (as examples) don't have polls separated by polling company, so this Connecticut article seems to be going against the Wikipedia norm. If you insist on separating by polling company then listing the polling company in the first column is redundant, so the first column should be removed from each table. --JHP 15:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I get some time, I'll propose changing those pages as well, according to the rationale I expressed above.  Aggregating different polls with different methodologies together in a chronological fashion introduces false trend lines. --kizzle 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First column gone. --Bobblehead 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me likey. --kizzle 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating Polling into sections 

message: I did some cleanup of this article. The article is quite long and I removed some tangential information that seemed POV. I think the article still has some POV problems--for instance in the Candidates section, Lamont's piece focusses on his platform, Ferruci's mentions one point of it and Lieberman's and Schlessinger's don't even mention their positions. I'm willing to discuss any of the changes I made; I tried to clarify them to some extent. Doctofunk 23:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less is More edits Sept. 20 

message: The order in which candidates are listed has changed a few times recently.  In looking around wikipedia, it seems that generally the incumbent and/or the candidate leading in polls is listed highest.  Since both are true of Lieberman, it makes sense he should be listed first.  It makes no sense to have him listed after Schlessinger, who isn't a competitive candidate. Doctofunk 19:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A stroll through the races listed on United States Senate elections, 2006 seems to be rather arbitrary as to which is listed first. Some don't have any sectional breaks by party and just mention the candidates in the intro of the article and then jump right into the history of the race.  Others are alpha by party, others by the incumbent. The one thing they all have in common is that third party candidates are listed after the Dems and Reps. Even Vermont, which has an Independent incumbent and an Independent poll leader, follows this pattern. --Bobblehead 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine why an encyclopedia article about an election would list a non-competitive candidate before a competitive one.  The Vermont article lists Bernie Sanders first last I checked. Doctofunk 19:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, and that is where you hit the sticky wicket. It lists the Democratic Party first, which was won by Bernie Sanders. Problem being, Bernie Sanders won't be running as a Democrat. He's running as an Independent and he's listed there as well. Realistically, the order can be anything, putting it in alpha by last name, first name, or party is equally acceptable. *shrug* That's why it's called an arbitrary decision. --Bobblehead 20:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering of Candidates 

message: An anonymous user has been adding information on the registered write-in candidates to both this page and the Connecticut gubernatorial election, 2006 page.  On the secretary of state website, their party affiliations are not listed.  I did some googling and found both Carl E. Vassar and John M. Joy listed in the "Political Graveyard" as Libertarians.  However, the Libertarian Party of CT and Libertarian Party of the U.S. don't mention either of them as candidates for governor or senator. As such, I feel like they ought not be characterized as representing the Libertarian Party in the Election results box.  Thoughts? Schi 22:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have reliable sources for their political affiliations. Political Graveyard is not a reliable source. Strike it. Captainktainer * Talk 02:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree; I've removed the Libertarian affiliations from the article until someone turns up a reliable source.  For the election box, I changed it back to "Other", since that's what it was before it was changed to Libertarian.  Schi 08:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Libertarians

message: The current referencing is a bit of a mess; it's most raw urls without meta-information. Worse, many of them are broken. I'm going through trying to re-attribute information–I've got access to Lexis Nexis which is helping a bit. If someone with local access to the Stamford Advocate could find those old articles it would help a lot. Mackensen (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference cleanup 

message: :Image:Lamontlieberman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Lamontlieberman.jpg

message: I propose merging Democratic Party primary, Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006 into United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2006 .
Rationale: I understand that this primary was a very big deal, but overall it was part of the larger campaign.  If you aren't familiar with this story, and you read the general election article first, you'd really wonder what the big deal was.  Then you go to the primary and think, WOW, what a story!  So put them together where they belong, into one nice complete article.  Rarely, if ever, has party primary been a separate article for any race other than the presidency. This campaign is done and behind us now, so the articles won't change significantly anymore.  I know we all like to have separate long detailed articles about every facet of a story, but these really do belong together. —Markles 14:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: User:Rockyobody is a vandal. In reverting, I may have messed things up. Please check it. Thanks.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm really not tell me how I vandalized this article. I did not do anything innapropriate by wiki standards. What I did was go by the rule that candidates cannot be placed in the infobox without recieving at least 10%. I will continue to follow that rule. Rockyobody (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you provide a link to that policy or guideline?  Also, I'd be interested in your comments in the section above, discussing whether the ten-percent threshold should be applied in this particular instance. JamesMLane t c 07:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you haven't provided a link to such a rule, and haven't explained why, even if there is a rule, it should be applied under these unusual circumstances, I'm restoring the information that was in the article until you removed it.  If you still think it should be removed, please discuss the matter here. JamesMLane t c 03:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I can't find the link I had before, but I really see no reason why he should be in the infobox, because he was irrelevant to the race. Most Republicans threw their support behind Lieberman, and Alan recieved less than 10% of the vote. There really is not much of a reason for him to be there. Rockyobody (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I stated the reason above: clarification for the reader.  Many people who come to this article won't know that that the Republican did so badly, but they will know that there are two major parties in the U.S.  Such readers will naturally be curious about how the Republican fared.  We should put Schlesinger in the infobox so that people can see right away how small his share of the vote was.  You already know that fact, but others won't -- the more so as time goes by.  Also, given the number of Republicans who backed Lieberman, it's significant that there actually was a different candidate on the Republican line, one whom they would normally be expected to support. JamesMLane t c 07:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We can include how Schlesinger did in thr first paragraph. Rockyobody (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As, indeed, we could include how Lieberman and Lamont did in the first paragraph.  The reason to have an infobox is present certain basic information in an at-a-glance format.  I'll agree with you that the infobox shouldn't include all the minor-party candidates whose share of the vote was insignificant, but including the Republican doesn't clutter the infobox. JamesMLane t c 04:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  oops 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060622050527/http://www.journalinquirer.com:80/site/news.cfm?newsid=16800389&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=565859&rfi=6 to http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16800389&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=565859&rfi=6
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060831171910/http://www.cnn.com:80/2006/POLITICS/08/09/democratic.primaries/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/09/democratic.primaries/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060707235336/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chait7may07,0,3857801.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions to http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chait7may07,0,3857801.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080320054340/http://www.huffingtonpost.com:80/eat-the-press/2006/08/15/chuck-roberts-apologizes-_e_27328.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/08/15/chuck-roberts-apologizes-_e_27328.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071226014838/http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/14/politics/p084158D10.DTL&type=politics to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/14/politics/p084158D10.DTL&type=politics
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080725032824/http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202006/postopinion/editorials/lieberman_for_senate_editorials_.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202006/postopinion/editorials/lieberman_for_senate_editorials_.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110628235346/http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/09/17/republican_bloomberg_to_help_lieberman/ to http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/09/17/republican_bloomberg_to_help_lieberman/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States Senate election in Connecticut, 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/20110629103650/http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/24/lieberman_hutchison_retire/index.html to http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/24/lieberman_hutchison_retire/index.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) 10:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on United States Senate election in Connecticut, 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.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-hackers2dec20,0,2766414.story?coll%3Dstam-news-local-headlines
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829201552/http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002 to http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://search.cga.state.ct.us/dtsearch_pub_statutes.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2006%2F09%2F14%2Fpolitics%2Fp084158D10.DTL&type=politics
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17417777&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927021227/http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1192 to http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1192
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) 15:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified