Talk:2010 United States Senate election in Alaska

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

Berkowitz[edit]

I misinterpreted what I saw there as blanking, it looks like an IP added Berkowitz, then removed him again from the list of potential candidates. I think they must have realized they were in the wrong place as Berkowitz has indicated he may challenge Palin for governor. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in information[edit]

It appears that I'm the only one who has tried to keep this page updated lately who isn't affiliated with a particular candidate. Things are happening faster than I have time to keep up with. I've tagged it as a "current event" in case that makes any difference. RadioKAOS (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haase[edit]

How was Haase able to run as both a Democrat and a Libertarian? Stonemason89 (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't. Due to a pecularity of Alaska elections, Democrats, Libertarians and Alaskan Independence Party candidates run on the same ballot (the ADL primary). There's some more background here. I've fixed up the article to make that clearer. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 01:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering in the infobox[edit]

I understand why Murkowski was moved to last, but should she have been? Sure, the major parties typically are listed first, but Murkowski is the incumbent in this race. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would go for alphabetical by surname until the election results.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murkowski is NOT an independent[edit]

Lisa Murkowski is not an independent. She has kept her registration as Republican and is running as a write-in. This is quite different from an independent bid. So we effectively have two Republicans in the race. Im trying to figure out how footnotes work, but if someone gets to it first, be my guest.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone tried to remove her altogether just now because she is running as a write-in candidate. That really doesn't matter as far as being properly verified is concerned. It's more than adequately sourced and I'm sure I could find many more sources if needed. It's creating quite a buzz in Alaska, I think a lot of Alaskans were rather surprised that Mr. Miller got the nom. (I know I was). Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I can imagine, especially since it was close. You guys have had a wagonload of surprises the past few years. Nice to meet an Alaskan actually. Ive never seen one online. Anyway, I found another source here where she says she has always been, is, and always will be a Republican.--Metallurgist (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She is definitely running as a Republican, write-in candidates can identify with any party like they choose, whether they are endorsed by them or not. Part of the issue here is the structure of primaries in Alaska. Although considered a solid "red state" many Alaskans prefer not to choose a personal affiliation. But when primary elections come up the Republican primary is closed. Republicans are on one ballot, everyone else, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Alaska Independence Party, etc, are on the other ballot. A lot of folks I know don't bother with the closed primary. Murkowski has stated that only 12% of Alaskans were involved in nominating Miller and has admitted that both she and her campaign suffered from "complacency" in that they expected to easily pick up the nomination. Polling up until just a week or two before hand backed up that assumption. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but I think she should be marked as an independent here as Miller and McAdams hold the nominations of the republican and democratic parties, and there can be only one candidate that holds that spot. Furthermore, the GOP has stated that Murkowski will be stripped of any leadership she had in the party over her write-in bid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.152.134 (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, her registration remains Republican and she has stated that she will continue to caucus with them. Its doubtfull theyll spurn her if theyre one seat from the majority.Metallurgist (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Lisa retains her seat, she will be the first write-in candidate in about 60 years to win a Senate seat. Politics aside, it will be an impressive feat if she manages to pull it off, and she will certainly be seen as a strong senator afterward. With Miller putting his foot in his mouth and going on CNN while refusing to speak to the Alaskan press (all of them not just the handcuffed guy) the possibility of her success suddenly seems higher than it did just a week ago. The Republican leadership would be fools to punish her for it, but politics is rife with fools so we'll just have to wait and see what actually happens. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Joe Lieberman remains registered as a Democrat, yet he was elected under the Connecticut for Lieberman party in 2006. Most sources list him as an Independent Democrat. Therefore, shouldn't we list Murkowski as an Independent Republican? --208.80.119.67 (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily - Lieberman had to run as an independent after he lost the primary in order to have his name on the ballot. Murkowski's wasn't on the ballot at all. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misc. - two items[edit]

  • In referring to the previous thread, the way in which the infobox reads at present would certainly lead one to believe that Joe Miller and Lisa Murkowski are both the Republican nominee for the seat. No, I don't have an easy solution for that.
  • The other item relates to endorsements. Mike Pence came on the Michael Dukes Show on KFAR to endorse Miller, not long after the primary if I remember correctly. I don't know if this was ever reported by an entity amounting to a reliable source, though.

RadioKAOS (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is ADL? How is it that Democrats and Libertarians were competing in the same primary?[edit]

But don't tell me here in the Talk page. Somebody who understands it please give a short simple explanation on the main page. Another poster put in a good link here in the talk page about it. IMO that should go in the main page. Thanks. CountMacula (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified the point on the primary elections, but I am also in the dark as to what "ADL" is supposed to stand for. Elections in Alaska are run by the State of Alaska Division of Elections [1] which is not listed as a subdivision of the Alaska Department of Law [2], which is my best guess as to what ADL is supposed to stand for. As it is not clear I have removed the term from the section header. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ADL is used as an abbreviation or initialism for something on the source page, but it is not clear what that something is. It is probably indicating Alaska Independence Party Democratic Party and Libertarian Party. There was one at least one candidate from each of these parties on the ballot somewhere, so I would assume if the greens had run somebody as well it would have been the "ADGL" primary or something. I think it is best to leave it off as it is confusing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The latter meaning is definitely correct. The Greens aren't a recognised party in AK so they don't get to run candidates in primaries. More info here. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 22:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I had noticed there weren't Greens on the ballot anymore, but I hadn't realized they actually lost their standing as a recognized party. In any event, I think just calling it the "open" primary is clearer than using the initialism. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Nominee"[edit]

United States Senate election in Alaska, 2010
← 2004 November 2, 2010 2016 →
 
Party Republican Democratic Republican
Candidate Joe Miller Scott McAdams Lisa Murkowski (Write-in)
U.S. senator before election

Lisa Murkowski
Republican

Elected U.S. Senator

TBD

I don't see why Murkowski should be listed as such in the info-box. Yes, she is campaigning, but she wasn't nominated. Neither being the incumbent, nor being well-known is the same as being the nominated candidate. She should be removed from the info-box. 137.229.182.39 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her not being a nominee is actually a solid logical reason to remove her. In this case, the nature of the race may be enough that we make the exception. Judges? --Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This absolutely is a very unusual circumstance, a lot of us up here are very curious as to what exactly is going to happen on election day. A write in candidate for the Senate that actually has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding is something the U.S. has not seen in decades. We could always re-name the "nominee" field, as it is inaccurate to describe her as such, but removing her altogether from the infobox denies the reality of the situation, that she has at least as much of a chance as Miller, and probably more of a chance than McAdams. Anecdotal evidence suggests that a lot of Democrats are going to abandon ship on McAdams and write in Murkowski as they see her as the lesser of two evils. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might "nominee" just be changed to "Major Candidate"? It's kinda weasel-wordy, but, like you said, these are unusual circumstances. There are plenty of notable sources that use the phrase "the three major candidates" already, as a simple Google search shows. Thoughts? 137.229.183.139 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the infobox, it looks like "nominee" is a hard-coded parameter, so I'm not sure how we would change it. Perhaps a different or a new infobox? Unfortunately I wouldn't have a clue how to do that, but maybe we could find a coding expert. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One solution is using {{infobox election}}'s "1blank" parameter as used in the example on the right. It's far from perfect though, as it automatically relegates the candidate names to below the party names. I'm not sure if that's significant enough to stop us using it. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 21:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just replacing "nominee1" "nominee2" and "nominee3" with "candidate1" "candidate2" and "candidate3" substitutes the words with the party underneath the name as desired. Any attempt to add a space character (for "Major Candidate") results in the omission of the line entirely. We could use this for now. File:AKSenate2010Test.PNG Zenblend (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me, I've made the change. Ironically, right as I was doing it my answering machine got a robocall from the Murkowski campaign. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait no, I got the first version up. Still needs tweaking to place the name over the party. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Zenblend (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polling scandal[edit]

In my town regarding early voting [3]. Only a few votes are affected, but the Dems may sue and the story has been picked up by both APRN and the AP [4]. I feel like I'm a bit too close to this one so I'll leave it to others to decide whether it deserves mention in the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, a list of write-in candidates (I didn't know such lists existed... I thought write-in meant you weren't official) was accidentally placed somewhere in the voting booth while 17 people voted. In other words, someone may have theoretically come in not knowing who they were voting, went out of their way to find a list, and then had their vote changed because the picture of Murkowski provided a subconscious boost to her. I'm thinking that picture probably changed one vote, max. It seems like a non-issue to me; someone goofed, that's all. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a previous incident in Homer where a candidate for mayor distributed stickers on election day. Such stickers do not count as votes in Alaska [5], so a list like this is the next best thing. The Democrats are definitely aiming to create a stink about this and have posted the photo that the person reporting this as a problem took: [6]. Apparently this is not an isolated incident, and there is this law: 6 AAC 25.070(b). "Information regarding a write-in candidate may not be discussed, exhibited, or provided at the polling place, or within 200 feet of any entrance to the polling place.” which the entire Division of Elections appears to be breaking. This could well turn into a big deal. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This did get bigger, the very existence of the lists may in fact be illegal, a judge has promised to issue a ruling in the morning, it's well beyond a local story now. [7] Beeblebrox (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well apparently no one else lives in Alaska, edits Wikipedia, and cares about politics. Go figure, with almost 700,000 of you all, you're almost 1/8th the size of the Philadelphia area. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The decision came back this morning, the lists are out due to the fact that the Division of Elections suddenly reversed their own policy that they have held for fifty years some twelve days ago right when Sen. Murkowski needed them to do so. They apparently asked the U.S. Department of Justice for permission to make the change but did not receive that permission before going ahead and distributing the lists.[8] The ironic thing is that either way, Murkowski gets a boost from it as it is impossible to describe the incident without repeatedly mentioning that she is running as a write-in. Are there still any objections to adding this content to the article? I've got six sources linked right in this section.(and yeah, Alaska is awesome like that, we have one of the smallest populations in a state more than twice the size of Texas.) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. If numerous sources mention it, it's now notable, especially for such a narrowly defined subject as this article (which is indeed narrow). I think common sense should dictate how much mention you give to it. And there is no problem whatsoever with Wikipedia mentioning it extensively; we're not the board of elections, and we're able to mention a notable candidate whether write-in or not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant that more in the sense that the press reports are all forced to repeatedly mention it. I actually heard a report on this on NPR news today, it's not often we get any kind of national attention like that. Anyway, I've just finished adding it to the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad polls - completely inaccurate. Unreliable pollsters, etc...[edit]

I noticed some of the polls mention Lisa's name in the call. This is not consistent with the ballot. The ballot never mentions her name, so this is not a proper way to poll. It's a way to show Lisa in the lead, when she really isn't. Politico did a report on this today. I removed some of them yesterday, but someone added them back. I think we should not include the bad polls. The Kentucky editors removed bad pollsters from their list too. --StormCommander (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think polls mentioning Murkowski by name are "bad polls" per se—rather, just a different way of doing things. If there was an obvious discrepancy between the polls naming Murkowski and those not naming her I'd be inclined to agree with you; however, as far as I can see most polls are putting Murkowski in the lead regardless of methodology. Instead, I'd favour the use of footnotes (or something similar) to distinguish between the different methods used. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 21:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without reading through the text, I saw a recent poll listed at Realclearpolitics which put Murkowski ahead by 10... I also noticed that it's commissioned by the Republicans (suspect) and it has always had her ahead despite everyone else not having her ahead, and says literally nothing of its methodology (e.g., does it mention her name or ask if they want to do a write-in with a follow-up?; partisan breakdown; by phone or in person; etc.). I'm suspicious of the poll, but both RCP and Fivethirtyeight are mentioning. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up, I think perhaps we should have an asterisk * next to any polls that mention her by name. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how polling is necessarily tied to what is written on the ballot. That kind of goes out the window when you have a candidate running as a write-in who is the scion of a political dynasty that has held positions of power in Alaska politics for the last 29 years. Six months ago most Alaskan had never heard of Joe Miller, and McAdams was only know in Southeast Alaska. The rest of it regarding the details of the methodology is out of my scope of knowledge, but on it's face the argument that any poll mentioning Murkowski is automatically flawed is illogical. However I must agree the article has suffered form too many polls being added. It should probably be trimmed. With two days to go we must be extra vigilant for anyone attempting to add a POV slant to the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, PPP (an actual well known / reliable pollster) just released their poll proving what I said earlier. --StormCommander (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to rub it in or anything, but clearly the late polls that showed Murkowski surging ahead were onto something. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

early returns[edit]

Just heard the first report and guess what? Any write in votes are being lumped together until they are sent to Juneau and sorted by the Division of Elections. With 27% of votes counted the early results are:

25%-McAdams
34%-Miller
39%-write-in

So Murkowski might have the lead, but I am guessing we are not going to get an answer tonight. It's also worth noting that that the Mat-Su valley has not returned any results at all as yet, so these numbers are wildly speculative at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you can see the latest results here: [9]. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, CNN is calling the write-ins as Murkowski* (star is not mine): [10]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the current status of this election?[edit]

Has there yet been a declared winner? It'll probably take a month to see, right? J390 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The clear lead is to "write-in" which almost certainly means Murkowski has won. However, for reasons I cannot fathom the manual sorting of the write-in ballots is not scheduled to begin until the 18th, and will not be complete until at least the 21st. Why they can't start right now is something only the Division of Elections can answer. So, McAdams definitely did not win, and Miller probably didn't. Unless more than 13,000 of the write-in votes are for someone other than Murkowski she will retain her seat. That is the firmest answer anyone can give at this time, but it's a fairly safe bet for Lisa. There will be no sweeping away of the old guard in Alaska this year, the Senator, Representative, and Governor positions have all been retained by incumbents. It's very likely that Murkowski owes a significant portion of her win to Democrats who crossed party lines to try and stop Miller, I would expect more to be written about that in the coming days. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Lieutenant Governor announced late today that they have pushed up the date to begin the manual count by a week, it will now begin on the tenth. Better, but still hard to comprehend. It's not like it the ballots are being moved to Juneau by dogsled... Beeblebrox (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

results table[edit]

Why does the results table list "write-in candidate" as independent ? As it isn't even one candidate, and not all of them are independents, that's highly inaccurate. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed It appears that the word in that field must be a word with a Wikipedia article. I tried to change it to "various" and it broke the formatting, but it worked fine when I changed it to N/A. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"official" write ins?[edit]

I've again removed this because it does not make sense to me. Official candidates are the ones whose names are printed on the ballots. Anybody can write-in any name they want and have their vote counted for that person. What is it that makes some official and some not? Where is the verification for this distinction? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to register as a write-in candidate. Hence the minor mess created by the conservative radio host who in trying to bury Murkowski's name on that approved list inspired about 150 random individuals to register write-in campaigns. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the list in question, and here's a Politico piece on the phenomenon. I assume write-in votes for people not on that list wouldn't be counted, or would be counted as other write-ins rather than under the name of the (non-)candidate. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 22:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I was of course aware of the lists, but I also thought that you could write-in anybody you wanted, listed or not. There was a last-minute campaign to write-in Mickey Mouse and really throw a wrench in the works, but I doubt many voters actually decided to throw their vote away like that. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that only write-in votes for registered write-in candidates are counted. The McAdams and Miller write-in votes don't get added to their totals because they didn't register write-in campaigns.
That leads me to a follow up question. I haven't crosschecked the official write in list and the list on the Wikipedia page, but how come so many individuals are listed one by one rather than being consolidated into the already existing "Misc. Names (other write-in candidates)" entry? Clearly the write-ins for Murkowski (counted, challenged or otherwise) are important, and the ones for Miller and McAdams are noteworthy too, but I don't get the need for a long counting of people with 1 or 2 votes, plus one with 6. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who changed that to read "other" rather than "official". This is the heart of my questions over this, if those are the totals for official write-ins then apparently there are other, unofficial write-ins as well that are in fact being counted. I guess. It's all getting a bit muddy. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems that all the ~160 names individually named in the election results are the registered write-in candidates, and the 620 "Other - Misc. names" votes are those who wrote in a non-registered candidate (or maybe some fictional name like "Mickey Mouse").--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote totals + percentage[edit]

So how should we handle percentages? Whether we decide them now or later, and whether the contesting is successful or not, we're still going to have the issue of a large number of disqualified Murkowski write-ins (somewhere between two and ten thousand). Let me illustrate, using vote totals from right now (not final totals, or even updated):

Murkowski Miller McAdams
Percentage of total votes cast for senator 39.5% 35.5% 23.4%
Percentage of total votes allowed for senator 41.1% 36.9% 24.4%

I'm willing to bet most election numbers given by the press and/or various secretary of states do not include invalidated ballots (bad write-ins, overvotes, etc.). Thus we would want to include the second set of numbers. What does everyone think? Am I right in this supposition, does anyone know? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bogosity: Primary systems section[edit]

  • The Republican primary is for registered Republicans. However, it is also open to anyone who is not registered under any other political party (which is the majority of registered voters in Alaska).
  • The name of the AIP is the ALASKAN Independence Party. Sorry if I seem so pedantic about this, but our absentee-corporate-owned major media outlets in Alaska have deliberately misrepresented the name of the party for just years and years and years (usually calling it the Alaska Independent Party).
  • The last part of the section, "and all other declared or write-in candidates," is also incorrect. The primary election is ONLY for prospective nominees of those parties recognized by the State of Alaska. Anyone running under any party not recognized must file a nominating petition, just like an independent candidate. Perhaps this needs to be clarified. Also, primary elections have NEVER accommodated write-in candidates or votes.RadioKAOS (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent wholesale removal of information on post election events[edit]

Recently, an editor removed nearly all of the information in this article on post general election events to an article that he or she then marked as under construction. No progress has been made on the construction for several days. I temporarily reverted all the material to this article, then pared it back, summarizing the post election litigation. I also re-added the tables of results that had also been removed without explanation. I am basically done, but will be adding a few cites.

I have eliminated, for the sake of brevity, a few details here that also support my actions, but have explained the main changes I have made and the reasons for them. (The details involve a recent AfD of the Miller v. Campbell article).KeptSouth (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Senate election in Alaska, 2010. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 09:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Senate election in Alaska, 2010. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 23:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on United States Senate election in Alaska, 2010. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues[edit]

There are 15 links in the "External links" section and this is far too much bloat. A small trimming, say 11 links, would be ideal. Otr500 (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_United_States_Senate_election_in_Alaska&oldid=1196576354"