Talk:Diane Farrell

message: Please refrain from nominating this article for (in my view unjustifiable) deletion pending the outcome of the Deletion Review at [].--Francisx 20:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion reviews happen before an article is restored, not after. Simões (talk/contribs) 00:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I made a mistake!--Francisx 00:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Requests 

message: If both candidates' articles are going to be populated with identical data (such as ongoing poll data), it might be wise to write the election article that should have been written before the AfD, to combine all of that data to one place and avoid repeating it in individual bios, only one of which will endure.  Sandy 06:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Connecticut 4th Congressional District Election, 2006 is now in place:  Wangi, I don't know why you deleted it from Farrell's article, linking instead to a general elections link.  Sandy 08:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Election article created

message: Francisx, please review the links to the Wiki policies and guidelines I provided above.  You have deleted an entire paragraph of text referenced to reliable sources, and you have already engaged in edit warring on an artilce that's barely a day old;  you could be blocked from editing the article if this kind of editing continues.  I suggest that as a good faith measure, you restore the deleted text, which was taken directly from a reliable source, and which should not be deleted.  I understand that you referred to yourself yesterday as a "newbie" (even though you've been a registered user since Dec 2005), so I won't take this further (yet), instead allowing you time to read up on the policies and correct the reversion.  Sandy 15:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion (above) for why sourced text is immaterial to this discussion. This is an article on Farrell, not Westport. I've explained my views above, I've refrained from further editing (the current version I think is equally irrelvent), and I think we need to hammer out a community consensus. In the interim, I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from threats. Cordially,--Francisx 20:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're still not understanding:  the threats were yours, as you've accused me of bad faith at least twice now, and you've removed sourced text twice now from an article which has been up barely a day.  You wanted the article badly:  you'll need to understand that the article will be neutral, not pro- or anti-Farrell, but neutral, without undue weight to any one view (right now, it's net pro-Farrell).  It isn't wise to remove sourced text that is written in a neutral fashion and from the highest quality sources.  The fact that you don't like the text, or disagree with it, isn't pertinent.  Removing well-sourced facts which are critical of Farrell creates POV, which is against Wiki's strongest policies.  A reliable source thought it was relevant, and that's what matters. I'm just telling you all of this because, during the CT primaries, the Lieberman article had to be semi-protected because of this kind of editing, so it will be better to learn and conform to Wiki policies early on, so the article doesn't have to be locked, or editors who violate policies banned.  None of those consequences are good for Wiki, or good for the articles. Sandy 20:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The threats are mine? Where have I threatened anyone? You threatened to block me from editing this page, but I fail to see where I threatened anyone or acted in anything other than a courteous manner. As for the present article being pro-Farrell, I fail to see any pro-Farrell POV at all on the page, with the exception of Farrell receiving support from Independents and Republicans -- I actually think that fluff should go, as it is unverifiable and completely meaningless. Do you see anything else? The only information about Farrell's views or her record is a partially rebutted attack on her by her Republican opponent that she is responsible for her town's high taxes. Help me out here! Thanks, --Francisx 21:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not threatened to block you from editing:  please produce a diff to back up that claim.  Right here, you failed to assume good faith in my edits, and you also questioned my good faith here.  This is not the tone normally used on Wikipedia; please review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, which are both policy.  Thanks, Sandy 22:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you threatened to block me when you said: you could be blocked from editing the article if this kind of editing continues. Now you can say that you were idly speculating that some deus ex machina might descend from the heavens to block me. However, I think it is entirely reasonable to interpret that as a direct threat. I don't appreciate it, and I hope you choose to be more civil in the future. Best, --Francisx 22:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When another editor explains to you the routine consequences of certain types of editing on Wiki, in the context of you having said that you are a "newbie", hence still learning policy, and you respond with the *assumption* that I was threatening you, you are failing to follow the Wiki policy of assume good faith — for the third time, in this case.  I hope you'll take some time to review all of the links to Wiki policy I've given you, so that we can get on with productive editing.  Regards,  Sandy 22:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The other article specifically cites Chris Shays, Farrell's opponent as its source. The NY Times cites Farrell. Maybe you could find a way to cite both -- because what we have here is a marked difference of opinion. Just on the credibility of the sources and the thoroughness of its factchecking, I think the NY Times trumps a free local paper, but that's not my call.--75.22.160.237 20:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, in the other article she specifically acknowledged his (Shays') statement, didn't deny it, in fact, tried to justify the high taxes by saying it was because of schools.   I showed you above how to cite both, and correctly attribute the words, although it's pretty clear that they *both* (Shays and Farrell) now know the first fact was wrong, as she didn't deny it, and he is certainly in a position to know taxes throughout Westport.  The NY Times reported it quite accurately as *her* statement - they did not assert it as a fact they had checked.  You have changed that to report it as fact.  Please correct the text to either, what it was before, or if you must include the old, outdated NY Times report, to something like the version I suggest above.  Thanks for coming to the talk page:  it will be most helpful if people will work to understand Wiki policies and hammer out text on the talk page.  IF not, the article will ultimately need to be semi-protected from anon edits.  Sandy 20:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, your addition of the word "however" between the two sentences isn't optimal.  The two issues aren't related (one is high taxes, the other is a failure to administer), hence shouldn't be joined with a however implying the second contradicts the first; and please review words to avoid.  Thanks, Sandy 20:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice re: However. Check the current, compromise version which incorporates text from both versions. Hope this is acceptable to all concerned.--75.22.160.237 21:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a few problems/questions there:  I'll start a new talk page section to pull it all togehter.  Hang on.  Sandy 21:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the clarification, Wspta.  The problem is, even if you're right (that they were each talking about something different in each situation), we can't engage in original research on Wikipedia.  We have to stick to what the sources say, until/unless we get another reliable source which changes/clarifies.  It sounds like including both quotes (as I proposed above) will cover all bases.  Sandy 21:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree, Sandy. Neither or both references should be cited. It looks as if both candidates are spinning the same information in different ways. Wspta 21:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions of text referenced to reliable sources

message: I removed the Google cached reference and replaced it with the same reference from the Internet Archive, added ref tags, updated the 2004 campaign numbers (which did not agree with the source provided), removed the polling and current campaign finance numbers to the election article (all of that info need not be repeated in 3 places - Farrell, Shays, and election articles - and belongs in the election article), moved some of the personal bio info to the top, corrected the link to the election article, and removed the content which was original research, based on a Letter to the Editor, which is not a reliable source.  Sandy 14:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several changes 

message: Sourced text describing Farrell's tenure as mayor is being repeatedly removed, claiming it has to do with the election and that it doesn't belong in this article, when in fact it is entirely related to her tenure as mayor, independent of the campaign.  In particular, the reval problem has nothing to do with the current election, and comments made in a debate during the 2004 campaign don't belong in the 2006 election article.  All of these comments have to do with her tenure as mayor: there are part of her record.  Legitimate, well-sourced criticism of Farrell, printed in the NY Times, should not be deleted from this article.  Thanks, Sandy 05:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the addition to the article, Wspta.  Your edit looks like a good faith attempt at compromise (although there is no Wiki policy which allows for deletion of content relevant to Farrell's tenure as mayor and sourced to the NY Times, unrelated to the current election).  A problem remains:  the same editors claiming that opponent's statements can't be used in Diane Farrell's article are inserting opponent's statements—not from reliable sources—into the article for Christopher Shays.  Your good faith edit would be a good compromise it if were applied equally to both candidate articles:  sourcing content about Farrell to a New York Times article is completely within policy.  Sourcing criticism of Shays from Farrell's campaign websites—websites that don't attain the requisites for reliable sources— under the guise of "some critics" is not within policy.  Sandy 15:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut the crap. You removed a NATIONAL HEADLINE on Shays. See the front page of CNN.com. However, you kept this on Farrell that said "A 2004 New York Times article reported that Shays faulted Farrell..." Your bias is clear. A national headline of Shay saying something isn't worth putting in his article, but a political attack made by Shays against, Farrell, his challenger is kept in. Arbusto 18:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed an edit in which you incorrectly quoted Shays, attributing words he did not say as a direct quote, which was not supported by the source you provided or any source on Google news; that is a WP:BLP violation.  I kept information which was accurately sourced and quoted.  If your edits are made with the appropriate attention to WP:V and WP:BLP, they will be less likely to be removed. Please don't put words incorrectly into a candidate's mouth, and please remember civility in your comments about others' edits.  Sandy 19:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions of sourced text about Farrell's tenure as mayor

message: The current image for this article is of exceptionally poor quality (i.e. so bad you can't see who it is). I'm going to replace it with a public domain press image. If you have problems with the change, please discuss.Francisx 21:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Change

message: Why are Libertarian articles prohibited?
I do not support their party much; but, Mr. Phil Maymin is an actual candidate, w/ the "I approved this massage" commercial.
< http://mayminforcongress.com/index.htm?home.php  >;
< http://mayminforcongress.com/home.php >;
< http://mayminforcongress.com >.
hopiakuta ; [[    { %c2%a1 %c2%bf  %7e%7e%7e%7e  } ;]] 23:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not notable enough. Come back when he hits double digits in the polls. Calwatch 22:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If double digits is a requirement for an personal article then Alan Schlesinger, the Republican in the CT Senate race, should not be listed.  Is this a bias in favor of major party candidates?  I am guessing that Maymin will have a bigger influence on who wins the Congressional seat than Schlesinger will have on the outcome of the Senatorial election.170.118.29.14 20:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a former State Rep and former Mayor of Derby, Schlesinger is certainly notable. Additionally, I don't think a lower notability threshold for major party candidates is necessarily a bad thing. After all, how many libertarian members of Congress are there? Even Ron Paul is elected on a major party ticket.75.16.160.125 18:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Schlesinger's former offices make him no more notable than Farrell and she failed the first notability test a couple of months ago.  I believe that anyone that has made it to the ballot in a notable election should be considered notable.  The argument that major party candidates should be allowed lower thresholds is unfair.  In the U.S. there are more minor party elected officials than "single digit" elected officials.170.118.29.14 19:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Phil Maymin]] 

message: Shays got 152,493 votes and Farrell 138,333.  The total votes are 290,826 and the vote difference is 14,160.  14,160/290,826 is 5% (4.86889 rounded) ~~Wspta
:Total votes as recorded by the Secretary of State are actually 290,830. I changed the text to "under 5%" for purposes of clarification.--Francisx 16:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Francisx, I have tried to find out if there is a Wiki rule for reporting election results.  I could not find one, but I did notice that results are usually posted as whole percentages.  On that assumption, I originally changed the difference to 5%.  I know that a lot of people have subtracted 48% from 52% to get the oft-quoted 4% difference.  Being a stat-head, I would be in big trouble if I reported the difference as 4%.  I don't think that the over/under qualifications are a good idea; more signicant digits would be a better solution.  I do not want to a revert war over this.  I feel that we should stick to the "custom" of whole percentages without added over/under clarifications.  What is your opinion on the reporting of election results?Wspta 19:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think more information is generally better; I really don't care whether that's with descriptive adjectives or extra sig figs (although I agree with you that claiming 4% is inaccurate). Specifically -- and this isn't a statistical concern but a political one -- I think the fact that Farrell finished within 5% of Shays is significant, and explains  why the race got as much attention in 2004 as it did. For what ever reason there's a big psychological difference in the political prognosticator community between finishing 5.4% down and finishing 4.6% down, even though both round to 5%. Why should this matter to us here? Well, it wouldn't, except that I think our job is to explain her notability, and finishing within five percentage points of Shays made her notable.--Francisx 20:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Treating 5% as a political threshold, I agree to your point on the "under" qualifier.  Thanks.Wspta 21:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004 Election Results

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Diane Farrell. 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/20061011192124/http://www.farrellforcongress.com/about/index.html to http://www.farrellforcongress.com/about/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312153910/http://www.westportct.gov/NR/rdonlyres/F73612E9-0714-4AAC-897A-279AF1534D3F/0/01official_election_results.pdf/ to http://www.westportct.gov/NR/rdonlyres/F73612E9-0714-4AAC-897A-279AF1534D3F/0/01official_election_results.pdf/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ci.westport.ct.us/select/biography.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070708034542/http://www.westport-news.com/ci_4450798 to http://www.westport-news.com/ci_4450798
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070322180513/http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004//pages/results/states/CT/H/04/county.000.html to http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004//pages/results/states/CT/H/04/county.000.html/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011192124/http://www.farrellforcongress.com/about/index.html to http://www.farrellforcongress.com/about/index.html
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) 04:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified