Talk:2010 United States Senate special election in West Virginia

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

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Polling[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Polling. —Markles 16:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Vote on Manchin Picture[edit]

Ok, apparently Gage and I won't agree so I think we should have a vote.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polling is not a substitute for discussion. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 23:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Picture of him in Kuwait[edit]

  • Support--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I support this because this is the picture used for Governor Manchin on his Wikipedia article. America69 (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait[edit]

  • Support. Gage (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportTM 22:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for now - depends on what sort of photo we get for his opponent. I would prefer they both be in suits, or both casual, not one of each. Flatterworld (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Of these, I believe that this one would be the more appropriate of the two given the fact that usually the formal portrait of a public office holder or candidate persuing public office is used for election articles.Fuelsaver (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson[edit]

There are 3 candidates. In the July poll, "other" gained 5%. Therefore, the only "other" not covered was Johnson. Jerzeykydd, your edits can be quite disruptive, I would be less willing to push the WP:3R rule if I were in your situation. I am going to include Johnson again, and I hope you won't violate the rule.--TM 22:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are freakin unbelievable. Apparently you can't resist creating an edit war.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jerzeykydd, I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Civility and perhaps not curse at me. Thanks--TM 22:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Other' in no way whatsoever specifically indicates Johnson. Please follow the established guidelines; unless Johnson receives 5% in an independent poll, then he will not be added to the infobox. Gage (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other candidates, Gage. Other by definition means the other candidate not listed.--TM 23:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other does not indicate any one person. Other can indicate someone who is not a candidate. Denying that is simply arrogant. You will continue to be reverted, and I will report you to WP:3RR if you attempt to add Johnson without consensus, or continue to ignore the established guideline. Gage (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My $0.02: On the whole, when the election has yet to take place and there are only three candidates on the ballot, I think it's best to include all three in the infobox. (Can we find some way of establishing a consensus on this that'll apply across every article? Because it seems like just about all of them have been protected at one point or another. An RfC at WP:WPE&R might be a good idea.) – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 23:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a consensus established to not include a candidate unless they poll higher than 5%. If there's a consensus to include Johnson in this instance then fine, but establising a consensus where all third party candidates are included in an infobox is impractical. Gage (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gage, there is no need for the hostility. Obviously tensions are high and I've started a section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Inclusion in infobox.--TM 23:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I came off as hostile, but I was in no way trying to seem as such. Gage (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to stay out for the most part in discussions, but I have something to say. (This isn't directed to you Jerzey!) "Other" could possibly indicate that the respondent may be writing in someone, so we can not assume that Johnson is what everyone meant who said "other" in the RR poll. That said, I think protecting a page because editor(s) dont agree on a small detail is riduculous. As someone who works hard on updating poll, because of this petty disagreement, a new RR poll,[1] can't be up dated. America69 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an {{editprotected}} request that the poll be added. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 21:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, if a candidate is considered important, s/he isn't named 'Other' in the polls. The actual name is used. Therefore, in this particular case, I can't really see that Johnson should be included in the infobox. ('Other' is also shorthand for 'none of the above' - yet another reason why one shouldn't assume other=johnson.)Flatterworld (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/west_virginia/election_2010_west_virginia_senate_special_election

Poll[edit]

{{editprotected}} This poll needs to be added to the polling section. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 21:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am including the Rasmussen Reports poll with Toplines.[1] America69 (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this poll should be put into the article.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The protection expires in a day or so, and given that the precise change isn't spelled out here I am leaning to decline.--Commander Keane (talk) 04:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace the contents of the section entitled "Polling" with the following:
Poll source Date(s)
administered 		Sample
size 		Margin of
error 		Joe Manchin (D) John Raese (R) Other Undecided
Rasmussen Reports (report) August 29, 2010 500 ± 4.5% 48% 42% 4% 7%
MindField Poll (report) August 6, 2010 413 ± 6.0% 54% 32% – 14%
Rasmussen Reports (report) July 22, 2010 500 ± 4.5% 51% 35% 5% 9%
Is that precise enough? – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 17:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Please add the following to External links:
*[http://www.pollster.com/polls/wv/10-wv-sen-ge-rvm.php 2010 West Virginia Senate General Election: John Raese (R) vs Joe Manchin (D)] at [[Pollster.com]]
*[http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate/west-virginia Race profile] at ''[[The New York Times]]''
Thanks. Flatterworld (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Senate special election in West Virginia, 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 13:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Senate special election in West Virginia, 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) 13:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_United_States_Senate_special_election_in_West_Virginia&oldid=1196576498"