Talk:2006 United States Senate election in Connecticut

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Connecticut High‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) event(s).

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

/June 2006 - August 2006

Untitled

For the merger proposal, see #Merger proposal, below.

Separating Polling into sections

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

First column gone. --Bobblehead 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me likey. --kizzle 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV ad description

I do not think an ad that doesn't make a specific charge about a candidate can be deemed "an attack ad" . Hence my edit

NPOV attack on Lieberman's pollster

I removed a claim that Lieberman's pollster was accused of fraud. His current pollster is Public Opinion Strategies, which is the firm that conducted the poll some Lieberman critic thinks is biased. The cited article does not reference this firm, rather another firm that did not conduct the poll in question. Wikipedia should not be used to make potentially libelous statements —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.181.54.81 (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your posts while posting on Wikipedia. (Using four consecutive of these symbols ~) The user who posted these allegations cited an associated press release that verifieds those specific chargers. It is also a fact that the poll was a remarkable outlier when contrasted with all other polling since August 8th.

66.188.208.180 04:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not support the claim so I removed the post. The firm respnsible DID NOT conduct the poll the Lamont camp doesn't like

There are plenty of truthful things to criticise Lieberman and his campaign over. Falsehoods aren;t necessary—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.181.54.81 (talk • contribs) .

As 66.188.208.180 points out, you should sign your posts while on Wikipedia talk pages. Whether or not you believe these allegations to be true or libelous is insigificant. The charges have been filed, as the cited article shows. It is perfectly legitimate to discuss controversy over a Lieberman pollster being charged with consumer fraud, and it is not "opinion" but a statistical fact that the recently leaked internal poll gives Lieberman far better numbers than the average polling since August 8th.

216.70.37.171 16:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused on the polling controversy section. The Boston Herald article is in regards to Tracy Costin who was the owner of a company called DataUSA and is now known as Viewpoint USA. The guilty plea relates to polling conducted between 2002 and 2004. However, the outlier poll is by Public Opinion Strategies. It appears that we are talking about two different polling companies. One that provided polling for Lieberman in 2002 (DataUSA) and another that is providing polling for Lieberman now (Public Opinion Strategies). The article states that Costin was indicted last year, so it seems that while the owner of a polling company that previously did polling for Lieberman plead guilty to forgery charges, not the owner of the current company that is doing polling for Lieberman. Am I missing the connection between Public Opinion Strategies and DataUSA(now Viewpoint USA). --Bobblehead 17:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the sentence per WP:BLP. Find a link between Viewpoint USA, Tracy Costin, and Public Opinion Strategies and then it can be added back. Until then it's an inaccurate and potentially damaging connection. --Bobblehead 17:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, and thank you for your correction.

66.188.208.180 20:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Less is More edits Sept. 20

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)[reply]

Ordering of Candidates

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Libertarians

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reference cleanup

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)[reply]

Further matter: the endorsement section is long and unwieldy. Do we really need it? Does the article benefit from it? Is there a better way to integrate this information? Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lamontlieberman.jpg

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)[reply]

Merger proposal

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)[reply]

Support Your rationale certainly makes sense to me. Since there don't seem to be any objections to a merger, I'm going to initiate the merger right now. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listing Schlesinger

As a general rule, we don't want tabulations of election results to be cluttered with minor-party candidates who receive only a handful of votes. They're just not notable enough for inclusion in the table (even if some of them, for other reasons, are notable enough for their own articles).

An editor has now applied this general principle to remove the information about Alan Schlesinger, the Republican candidate, from the results list here, on the grounds that Schlesinger's vote fell below ten percent.

This doesn't seem like a sound application of our policy. It's very unusual that a major-party candidate comes in third, with less than ten percent of the vote. It's certainly notable. Furthermore, as a practical matter, many readers would look at the table and say, "What about the Republican?"

I don't think that a ten-percent threshold should be applied with utter rigidity. This instance is an appropriate place for an exception. The editor who removed Schlesinger has reverted my restoration of the information, however, so I invite comment here. JamesMLane t c 01:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are elections in the UK where one of the three major parties does not stand a candidate (which is not quite what happened here, but close). How is the matter handled there? Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a party has no candidate on the ballot then no candidate from that party would be listed in the results. I don't know what's done for UK elections, but for U.S. elections, where results from multiple years are presented in a box, the entry is left blank where appropriate, or the words "no candidate" may be used. See, for example, Ray LaHood#Electoral history. This lets the reader know that there was no candidate. That way the reader isn't left speculating that there might have been a candidate who received less than some threshold percentage of the vote, or that Wikipedians haven't yet been able to find out the name of the candidate who ran on that line. JamesMLane t c 16:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was actually wrong, the candidate should not be in the infobox if they recieve under 15% of the vote, unless they were very notable in the election or there is a consensus. I was looking at the 2000 Presidential Election, and Ralph Nader is not in the infobox. If he was not notable in that election, I see no way in which Schlesinger is notable in this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockyobody (talk • contribs) :07, 17 January 2009

As per my comment in the next thread, would you please provide a link to the policy you're relying on? JamesMLane t c 19:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oops

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

We can include how Schlesinger did in thr first paragraph. Rockyobody (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Discussion of Schlesinger

Rockyobody, the pattern we've been following isn't working. Too often, you delete the information from the infobox. I explain on the talk page why I think it should stay. Disdaining edit warring, however, I leave your edit alone and wait patiently for your response. When you don't answer, I restore the information, and only then do you pay any attention, immediately removing it again. This is considered bad form on Wikipedia.

I'll now restore the information, as that seems to be the only way to get you to acknowledge that any other editors exist. Perhaps, though, I should just take it to RfC and give up trying to have a discussion.

The point about "irrelevance" is that a reader looking at the infobox for a quick summary would naturally ask, "Was there a Republican candidate, or did the Republicans nominate one of the others, or was their ballot line blank?" The infobox is to give the reader the important information about the election at a glance. For a major-party candidate to come in third, with only 10% of the vote, is very unusual, and that's important information. The issue isn't some abstract idea of "relevance", but of how to make the article as useful as possible for our readers -- in particular, for the reader who comes to this article with little or no prior knowledge of the subject, but with the knowledge that the Republican candidate in a U.S. election almost always comes in first or second. JamesMLane t c 05:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern followed on wiki is that there should be two candidates in the infobox, but there can be three if all three received more than 15%. Alan rarely campaigned, received almost no notable endorsements, and was irrelevant throughout the entire race. The first paragraph states how he did, and that should be enough. There is more info about him towards the bottom of the article if the reader actually cares. Rockyobody (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Pattern" doesn't matter because this race was unusual. If you want to look at patterns, I'd say the pattern followed on Wikipedia is that the Republican and Democratic candidates, if any, are included in the infobox. What really matters, though, instead of "pattern", is how best to give the reader the information about this particular race.

You're right that the information about Schlesinger is in the text of the article. So is all the other information in the infobox. The point of the infobox is to serve the convenience of the reader who wants key information at a glance. You obviously know a lot about the race, but have a care for the reader who doesn't. Many readers who come to this article and glance at the infobox will say, "Hey, what about the Republican Party? Did they not field a candidate?" We should make it easy for those readers to see that there was a Republican. More detail, such as prominent Republicans' endorsements of Lieberman instead of Schlesinger, can indeed be left to the text. JamesMLane t c 02:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, the main reason was that I think all infoboxes look better with only two candidates. There is some sort of 15% threshold, but you're right that the reader probably will want to know how the Republican did. I am no longer going to try and change it, and while I still think the infobox would look better without him, you're right most readers will wonder about the Republican. Rockyobody (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that a two-candidate infobox is generally better, but this race was exceptional in several ways. Following your idea of "pattern", I tried to think of comparable cases. When Bernie Sanders was first elected to the House, the Democratic candidate finished third, but we have no article (hence no infobox) on that election. When Sanders won his Senate seat, the Democratic line was blank, so the question didn't arise. In the Minnesota gubernatorial election, 1998, all three candidates polled above 25%. Similarly, when James L. Buckley won a Senate seat, the third-place candidate, Republican Charles Goodell, received 24.3% of the vote. We don't seem to have an article on either of Angus King's gubernatorial wins. The result is that I can't think of any Wikipedia infobox that's comparable to this one (i.e., a major-party candidate doing so badly). JamesMLane t c 10:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]