Jump to content

Talk:Connecticut for Lieberman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Change Citation

[edit]

The section of the article dealing with the vandalism of the wikipedia page by a party member contains a broken citation link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.34.107 (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

It's definitely not NPOV, but it raises some valid issues about CT third parties. If someone wants to rework its inclusion (say, by citing it in the article text) I have no objection, but I think it can be legitimately included in an NPOV way. I don't claim yet to have done so. Maybe there are other columns praising CfL that could also be profitably included, I don't know. Cheers, PhilipR 21:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it relevant to the article? --Tjss(Talk) 15:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the link. It's both biased and irrelevant. Doctofunk 20:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CfL future

[edit]

What is the future of the CfL Party? --myselfalso 05:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, it will be around as long as Lieberman is a senator from Connecticut. Valtam 16:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I think he's repatriating to the party. [www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/10/ct.senate.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories Call Me A Democrat][1]

Apparently, they have a guaranteed ballot line for the Connecticut senate race six years from now, due to Joe's victory in the general election this year.[1]. I'll be surprised if they don't nominate some kind of candidate at that point... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The real (original) CFL party remains dormant, but still under control of Lieberman and whoever the 25+ electors are who reserved the party designation. And they do have a ballot spot in the next Senate election, if they choose to use it. The rest of this is alot of entertaining political theatre. Per Sec 9-453u paragraph (e) "The reservation shall continue in effect from the date it is recorded until the day following any regular election at which no candidate appears on the appropriate ballot for that office under that party designation." http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/pub/Chap153.htm#Sec9-453u.htm Acerimusdux 04:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to post information from this Greenwich Times/Stamford Advocate articleon the CFL page. --Seraphim55 (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, as long as you include the response: In an editorial page column in The Advocate of April 15, Sara Littman gave a very incomplete view of the events surrounding the evolution of the Connecticut for Lieberman party.

I was the first member of the party, having registered on August 9, 2006. At the time of a gathering of Lamont supporters in January 2007, I was the only member of the party with party privileges.

Under Connecticut law, the only members eligible to vote on party matters are those who have been members for at least 90 days. Under the unchallenged party rules, the annual meeting of the Connecticut for Lieberman party is held in August. Eligible members of the party, that is, those registered for at least 90 days, were invited to the meeting held August 9, 2007.

Subsequent to August, a request for a special meeting of the party was submitted, but no reason was given. The request was denied by the party leadership.

Mr. John Mertens is a failed minor-party candidate who now wants to use Connecticut for Lieberman as a vehicle for seeking office again. His disregard for proper procedure has not secured him any valid claim to party leadership.

Connecticut for Lieberman is a new political party that carries on what used to be the ideals of the Democratic Party: a liberal approach to domestic issues coupled with a strong commitment to a robust foreign policy. New members who subscribe to this platform are welcome. http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/letters/ci_9127496 http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/norwalkadvocate/opinion/ci_9127497 Skorchin (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original article is now available to the general reader only upon payment of $2.95. I assume that Mr. Korchin's letter in response will soon suffer the same fate. Instead of providing these useless links, I've included the information about the change in officers by citing it to the Orman/Mertens faction's website. Because of the dispute about the legitimacy of the "statewide party caucus", we can't simply assert that a caucus was held and that Mertens is the new chair; we have to indicate that the caucus was called by one of the factions. The information that the party nominated candidates for state rep would be notable if that nomination put them on the ballot, but, as I understand it, the CfL automatic ballot line applies only to the 2012 Senate race. If that's correct, this "nomination" has no legal effect. I don't see any reason to include it in the article unless and until there's some indication of notable CfL activity on their behalf. (If either faction of the CfL does something notable in the political arena besides throwing rocks at the other faction, that should be included.) JamesMLane t c 12:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/10/ct.senate.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

sorry

[edit]

Sorry that I edited this page to say Lamont beat Lieberman I misunderstood the page on the 2006 Senate race and thought it said Lamont had won out, so I edited this page accordingly. I don't want to be seen as a vandal, as I am an anonymous IP address. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.111.165.55 (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

WP:COI

[edit]

It appears to me there is a bit of an edit war going on here between editors who may not have a neutral point of view on this article subject.

User:SKorchin and User:Stuart_Korchin both seem to be handles for Stuart Korchin, one of the parties involved in the dispute for control of the party.

Likewise, User:Doodysprinkles has been posting on left wing blogs (under the handle sprinkles) soliciting support for her version of the article, and has identified herself as Sue Henshaw, the Secretary of the Ornan faction of the party.

I would encourage all involved parties to please read carefully the guideline WP:COI, and "avoid or exercise great caution" in editing this article. I would also encourage neutral editors to keep an eye on this and watch for NPOV issues and content that is not encyclopedic. Acerimusdux 09:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and the latest edit by Skorchin raises these concerns anew.
As I understand the facts, Korchin says he changed his registration on August 9, 2006, but the Secretary of State didn't have a record of that. Korchin attributes the discrepancy to error by the voting registrar or the Secretary of State's office. He's certainly entitled to hold that opinion, and we should report it (as my edit did), but the objective fact that is known is only that he stated that he changed his registration, not that he actually did so. (In other words, meaning no disrespect to Mr. Korchin, we can't assume that his statement is correct. Maybe he prepared a change of registration to be mailed but it fell out of his pocket and wasn't included when he mailed his other letters that day. Under WP:V and WP:NOR, nothing Korchin says here can establish that he did change his registration.)
He's also disputed Orman's statement about notice of the meeting. There are two problems here. First, Korchin's edit says he "noted" that Orman was notified. That implies that his version of events is true. Here again, we don't know that. We shouldn't say that Korchin "noted" that Orman was notified any more than we should say that Orman "noted" that he wasn't notified. We know that they made statements and that's what we should report. Second, the whole edit depends on an assertion about a letter to the Hartford Advocate that isn't cited. I tried to find it on the Advocate site and through a Yahoo! search and came up dry. All editors should adhere to WP:CITE but, Mr. Korchin, it's especially important that you do so when you're editing in probable violation of WP:COI.
Finally, I wrote, "Korchin told the Hartford Advocate that he had held another party meeting, although he did not say where or when it had occurred." Skorchin changed that to read, "Korchin told the Hartford Advocate that he had held another party meeting on August 9, although he did not say where it had occurred." His version is directly contradicted by the text of the linked Hartford Advocate article, which states: "Korchin wouldn't tell me where or when the meeting as held . . . . " (I'm assuming that "as" is a typo for "was".)
For the foregoing reasons, I'm reverting the edit. Mr. Korchin, I suggest that you provide suggested language on this page, including a link to your letter, so that the editors without a conflict can evaluate your proposal. JamesMLane t c 07:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lane: with due respect, the facts regarding my party registration are well documented. In Connecticut, party registration is predicated solely on visiting the Registrar of Voters in one’s town, and filling out a form. I did this at the Cheshire Registrar of Voters office on August 9, 2006, changing my party registration from Democratic to Connecticut for Lieberman. The receipt or non-receipt of notification of this change by the office of the Secretary of the State in Hartford is irrelevant to any change in party registration. By the same token, I was informed (erroneously) by the Secretary of the State that Susan Henshaw was affiliated with Connecticut for Lieberman, when in fact she had disaffiliated. Again, the only important fact is what the town Registrar of Voters records. As evidenced by the referenced article in the New York Times of January 18, 2007, my party registration as of August 9, 2006 was verified by a reporter, so you don’t need to take my word on it.

Second, I have an email from John Orman declining to attend the August 9, 2007 meeting. I’ll be happy to forward a copy of that email to you if you care to see it. I noted this in this letter to the Hartford Advocate:

http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=2596

Third, your assertion that I didn’t tell Adam Bulger when the annual meeting of Connecticut for Lieberman was held is ludicrous. The cited article states in the fifth paragraph: “The second annual meeting of the party was held on August 9.” The fourteenth paragraph states: “Speaking before the Aug. 9 meeting, Korchin said he expected about 30 party members to attend the meeting.” For your information, the meeting was held on August 9, 2007. Is it important to know the exact time? Skorchin 00:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following my suggestion that you discuss the matter here instead of editing the article yourself. Specific subjects:
  • Party registrations: You state that "the only important fact is what the town Registrar of Voters records." For Wikipedia, however, the only important fact is what we can ascertain under our policy of Verifiability (often "WP:V" on talk pages). The key passage:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

By that standard, I'm inclined to agree with you that the January article in the Times supports your statement about your party registration. It's not 100% clear that the reporter verified it with the registrar, but that seems like the most plausible reading. We should, however, note that the Secretary of State didn't have the record, because that's relevant to the subsequent communication to Orman (that there were no registered party members). As for Ms. Henshaw's registration, we have assertions from you and from her, but nothing that I'm aware of that satisfies WP:V.
  • Notice to Orman: Thanks for your offer to forward the email to me, but that would accomplish nothing in light of WP:V. What does accomplish something is your providing a citation to your LTTE. We now have published sources for Orman's assertion that he wasn't notified and for your assertion that he was. We can report both assertions. That's all we can do. I have great respect for investigative journalism, but we don't do it here.
  • August meeting: I'll tell you frankly that I didn't completely understand the Advocate article. I agree with your implication that it's not important to know the exact time of the meeting. That's why, when the article said that you "did not say where or when it had occurred", I interpreted that as meeting that you didn't say whether the meeting scheduled for August 9 had actually occurred on August 9. At any rate, that doesn't matter, because citing your LTTE enables us to report your unambiguous assertion that it did indeed occur on August 9.
I've now revised the article again based on the foregoing. If I've gotten any of the facts wrong or misapplied Wikipedia policies, please raise the point here. I have the page watchlisted and I'll try to respond promptly. JamesMLane t c 07:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Korchin, I have previously sent you (in July, 2007) a copy of a document, dated July 10, 2007, signed and attested to by Kathleen Miranti, Assistant Registrar of Voters of Trumbull, which states that I have been registered with the Connecticut for Lieberman Party since 1/18/2007. This document is on record in the Registrar of Voters in the Town of Trumbull. Should you have any questions as to my registration, please contact Ms. Miranti. --Seraphim55 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Susan Henshaw[reply]

Thanks to Mr. Lane for educating me regarding Wikipedia policies, and for providing changes which corrected the errors.

As Ms. Henshaw is perfectly aware, the document to which she refers is erroneous. I contacted the Trumbull Registrar of Voters, and spoke with Ms. Mironti's supervisor, who recogized the mistake and agreed to notify Ms. Henshaw. Ms. Henshaw and I both received a copy of her voter registration, which verifies her affiliation with Connecticut for Lieberman on June 22, 2007. I remain mystified why Ms. Henshaw would continue to lie about this when the facts are already known. I believe that her disaffilation, reaffiliation and the subsequent attempts to discredit the facts about it are relevant to the mention of her in the Orman article. Eventually some enterprising journalist will investigate this and report on it, at which time I will be delighted to add the reference. Skorchin 16:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone recently pointed out to me that the members of "Lamonties Who Can't Get Over It" are planning to go annoy someone else:

http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/article.cfm?aid=1540

Much as we will miss the additional publicity for Connecticut for Lieberman, we wish Orman, Kantrowitz and Henshaw godspeed in their future endeavors. Skorchin 02:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Korchin - please provide documentation as to your party registration. Otherwise, your claim is unreferenced.

--76.196.121.110 (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion of this issue above. When we had only the Connecticut Post article as a source, I agreed with your point, and so I edited our article to read: "Lieberman supporter Stuart R. Korchin has stated that, on August 9, 2006, the day following the primary, he changed his party registration to Connecticut for Lieberman." Because of this article in the New York Times, though, I consider it reasonable for us to report this as a fact (with a source), rather than merely a Korchin assertion. JamesMLane t c 15:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lane, if that is the case, why have you added back unreferenced material which impugns my valid party registration, as well as comments regarding the 25 founders of the party?Skorchin (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References as to Mr. Korchin's claim:

AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF A "MINOR PARTY"

From the Office of Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, the date the party was certified:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tuesday, August 23, 2006: SECRETARY BYSIEWICZ: SEN. LIEBERMAN COLLECTS ENOUGH VALID SIGNATURES TO GAIN NOVEMBER BALLOT ACCESS

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:k7lSKDOjjxIJ:www.sots.ct.gov/releases/2006/8-23-06PetitionSignatures.pdf+lieberman+qualifies+for+november+ballot&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Mr. Korchin claim is to have joined the party on Aug. 9th, 2006 (the date the petitions were due to the office of the Secretary of State). However, the party wasn't officially certified by Ms. Bysiewicz until August 23, 2006. Mr. Korchin 'joined' a nonexistent political party.

--Seraphim55 (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SKorchin: As my edit summary indicates, my intention was to fix the broken CQ hyperlink. I was reviewing the history, and apparently I edited an earlier version instead of the one I intended to edit. Matching my error, though, you've apparently reverted to a different earlier version, thus breaking the link I had fixed and causing some other problems. I'll now try to rectify both our errors.
Response to Seraphim55: This article can include the fact of the date of Bysiewicz's certification of the party. It can't include the assertion that a change of registration before the certification date is ineffective unless that assertion is properly sourced. I will, however, remove the statement that the Korchin registration change was not "properly" entered in the database. That word implies that an error was made. Perhaps the failure to enter the change was not an error if a change preceding the certification is invalid. Absent a reliable source on the point, our article can't assert either that the registration was ipso facto invalid or that it was perfectly proper and that any failure to enter it was therefore a screwup. JamesMLane t c 18:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Lane: The exact quote from Jennifer Medina's article (NY Times, Jan. 17, 2007) is "when Mr. Korchin filled out a short form in August at the Cheshire Town Hall changing his party affiliation from Democrat to Connecticut for Lieberman, the information could not be properly entered in the state’s electronic voter database." I don't "claim" anything. This is what was reported. If you have any suitable references to challenge this, please cite them. If not, I suggest using the direct quote from the reporter to avoid the appearance of bias on your part. Skorchin (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ballot access

[edit]

The article has been edited to refer to this story in the Hartford Courant about several CfL candidates for state legislature. The Courant story gives the impression that the CfL has full ballot access for its candidates for any office. I was under the impression that its automatic ballot access is only for the office for which it filed petitions, i.e., the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Joe Lieberman, which isn't scheduled to be voted on again until 2012. Can anyone clarify? JamesMLane t c 10:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's neither. Legally, Senator Lieberman still has automatic ballot access for the 2012 election. And, still owns the CFL party designation for that election. The original Reservation of Party Designation is controlling. Barring a vote of that original party designation committee, or at least the co-operation of one of the two individuals authorized to file endorsements or nominations, neither of these factions will have a say in it. None of these "reporters" seems to have bothered to check the actual law; but that's the plain language of the law. Interestingly, though, since it is a minor party, the name is only reserved for elections which will appear on that specific ballot. So if they wish, this group could use the name for any other election, so long as they are willing to go through the usual process of petitioning for ballot access. Acerimusdux (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're basing the foregoing assertion on your reading of the statute you've cited elsewhere, section 9-453u, available here. I don't read it that way. It relates simply to reserving the name of the party. On the assumption that CfL is treated as a minor party, the question of who gets its ballot line is addressed in section 9-451, which provides: "The nomination by a minor party of any candidate for office, including an office established after the last-preceding election, and the selection in a municipality by a minor party of town committee members or delegates to conventions may be made in the manner prescribed in the rules of such party, or alterations or amendments thereto, filed with the Secretary of the State in accordance with section 9-374." That's why the two factions are disagreeing about party rules.
If you want to make the rather astonishing assertion that one particular individual (Lieberman) has an automatic ballot spot, not subject to any party action or primary challenge or requirement of petitioning, you'll have to support that with a reliable source. Similarly, I'm removing your assertion in the article that "Neither faction however, is related to the original party designation committee ...." That statement will also need to be cited to a source. JamesMLane t c 05:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Before I removed the statement I said I'd remove, an anon removed it (the reference to section 9-453u) and substituted a reference to section 9-451, noted in my comment above. I think my OR is correct but it was presented for talk-page consideration only, not as part of the article. All this stuff about Connecticut law is ineligible for inclusion in the article, per WP:NOR. Only analyses or conclusions from reliable sources are acceptable. JamesMLane t c 05:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sec. 9-451 says nothing at all about ballot access. It only says that nominations have to be made in accordance with party rules. But any number of CFL parties may legally form and file party rules under Sec. 9-374. All of them are valid. There is no law restricting anyone from filing rules using an already existing party name. There is no conflict unless more than one of these factions tries to nominate a candidate for the same election. At that point, there is a law about who is entitled to ballot access using that name.
Once any of these factions tries to nominate a candidate specifically for this US Senate seat, a conflict arises in that this party designation is legally reserved for that specific election by the original party designation committee. The Secretary of State would be required under this law to reject any endorsements or nominations not filed by the individuals authorized in the Reservation of Party Designation to file them.
This is not to say that the line is reserved specifically to Senator Lieberman as an individual, but that ballot access in that election remains under the control of the original 25 electors and Lieberman supporters who filed for this party designation. This is the only faction as well which qualifies as a "minor party" for this election, under 9-372(6), being an organization "whose candidate for the office in question received at the last-preceding regular election for such office, under the designation of that political party or organization, at least one per cent of the whole number of votes cast for all candidates for such office at such election." The only additional nominating requirements they will have to meet as a minor party are to file party rules 60 days before nominating a candidate under those rules, and to notify the Secretary of State 5 days before any nomination meeting.
While the story as presented makes for a good yarn, like any good fantasy it requires a certain suspension of disbelief. What would be truly "astonishing", for example, would be if it really mattered one whit who first enrolled in a new party in the days immediately following an election, or if a party could truly be hijacked in such a fashion. The story as presented makes for wonderful political theater, but it isn't very encyclopedic. Acerimusdux (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that who enrolled first isn't dispositive. What I find "astonishing", though, is the assertion that a political party entitled to a ballot line (even for only one office) could be forever under the control of the "original party designation committee, or at least ... the two individuals authorized to file endorsements or nominations". Party rules calling for a nominating convention? Don't matter. Primary challenge to the founders' pick for office? Don't matter. A law giving so much power in perpetuity to a handful of unelected oligarchs would be a pretty unusual arrangement (and quite possibly unconstitutional). I don't read the Connecticut law as establishing any such thing. That's why I don't think any statement to that effect should be included in the article unless it's cited to a reliable source. JamesMLane t c 20:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


What you find astonishing is in fact the law, whether you've read it or not. Under 9-453u (e): "The reservation shall continue in effect from the date it is recorded until the day following any regular election at which no candidate appears on the appropriate ballot for that office under that party designation".[2] And the SOS is required to accept petitions under this name per Sec 9-453o(b) only if the candidate is endorsed by that Party Designation Committee. [3] The individuals authorized to file these nominations and endorsements on file with the SOS per 9-453u (d). This isn't analysis or opinion, it's simply Connecticut law.
There are no Constitutional issues here. Neither the State Legislature nor the U.S. Congress has legislated any requirements here as to what the party rules must be. They could chose to have nominations by a dart throwing monkey if they wished. If the state did try to impose rules, those might run against First Amendment restrictions guaranteeing freedom of speech and association. There are no requirements whatsoever for nominating conventions or primary challenges. Political parties are not run by the state; there is no requirement that they be democratic in their internal processes.Acerimusdux (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to an inquiry by Stuart Korchin, Chairman of Connecticut for Lieberman, the office of the Secretary of the State stated "that the duties of the Secretary of the State with regard to party rules extend only to the receipt thereof and their placement on file; they do not extend to the examination of the rules and determination as to their validity in accordance with statute." Automatic ballot access is only for the U.S. Senate. The candidates in question filed under rules regarding the use of nominating petitions. Skorchin (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self Reference

[edit]

This article refers to edits made by the subjects on Wikipeda, which I believe is against WP:SELF . The guideline says "Articles where Wikipedia played a major role in the subject of the article" are acceptable, which I think is not the case here. Mherlihy (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Mertens candidacy in 2010

[edit]

Sue Henshaw, who was at one time a CfL officer, has called my attention to two news stories about the possibility that John Mertens will run for the U.S. Senate in 2010 on the CfL line: {http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-new-opponent-dodd-0908.artsep08,0,4074981.story], [4]. I'm pursuing this aspect to how it should be incorporated into our article, and I'd welcome any ideas. In particular, I'm trying to clarify how the various alternatives would affect CfL's ballot status. JamesMLane t c 11:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is so corny. How many voters would be interested in learning the differences between voting for Joseph Lieberman and a Lieberman for Connecticut candidate? I think Mertens is hoping for support from misinformed voters in 2012.--Screwball23 talk 21:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Connecticut for Lieberman. 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 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 12:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Connecticut for Lieberman. 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:

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) 18:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Connecticut for Lieberman. 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:

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) 20:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Connecticut for Lieberman. 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:

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) 06:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Connecticut_for_Lieberman&oldid=1206773739"