Talk:2010 United States Senate election in California

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

Untitled[edit]

It is not acceptable to judge the worth of an individual and deside if they are worthh mentioning at all, in politics, because then Wiki, is on dangerious ground where by it serves the interest of the existing power structure, and jepardizes the ability for change. It is acceptable to delete a self described posted article about ones self. It is not acceptable to delete reference to the very name of a candidate who is involved in a legitamate exploratory committee to run, as required by the FEC. I will be filing officialy soon, and at that time, I will expect to be considered a person, of noteworthy enough stature to be allowed to stand..

To suggest that larry elder is better than me, is biased.

Would wiki dare to say he is better than me? And to be fair, since he is only considering a run, and has no formal intentions, to be fair, he should, and I dare say must, be removed as well. Otherwise, Wiki proves itself to be biased to celebrity, and it brings shame on your organization, and shows it to be less than nuetral.. in fact it proves it to be biased. And I have a very long memory.

-mosheh

Campbell[edit]

A few days ago, it was reported on public radio that Campbell pulled his spots and that many experts see that as conceding. It's more reliable than most of the other information on Campbell, so I don't understand why anon IPs keep removing it. Purplebackpack89

Please see my response to your claims on my talk page.67.203.188.58 (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You never edited my talk page. And they'd better be good, because like I said, I have citations on my side; you don't Purplebackpack89 01:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primaries[edit]

I think my format is much more user friendly. The format before was very confusing. In addition, it's more consistent to every other U.S. Senate election article. I don't see how anyone can disagree with me, clearly the format before was very confusing.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree that all the changes improve the article. To make this a bit easier I'm going to list the differences between our edits so we can maybe find some common ground.
  1. The fundraising table for the primary election cycle was removed by you. I would argue for its inclusion.
  2. You changed the formating for the polling tables. I don't have strong feelings either way, but my edits simplified the table.
  3. You broke up the primary result and candidate sections and reorganized the pieces into sections for each party's primary. I think there's no reason to break up the candidate section because the candidates are now mentioned twice in the primary and general election sections. With the exception of the Republican primary, it also seems like the party primary sections are kind of bare since there is just a list of names followed by the same names, but this time with the vote totals. – Zntrip 08:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You can put back the primary fundraising table in principle. Meaning once we get this entire thing settled.
  2. You can change the polling tables to the way you like it.
  3. Yes, it's true that candidates are repeated twice. I agree with this because I make the primaries and general election into seperate elections. I also split the R and D primaries into seperate sections. Why? Because the reader may want to know the specific candidates and specifi campaign stories for the Democratic and Republican primaries. Under your format, all the primaries are mushed together in the same primary. The problem with this is that their was only one competitive primary: the Republican primary which had polling, endorsements (which isn't there), controversies, and a story to tell. If somebody wanted to see this article simply to try and understand the why Fiorina won the Republican primary over Tom Campbell, it would be very difficult to figure it out and find it. Meaning your format is too confusing.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, points one and two are settled. And I think you're mostly right about point three. I think it's probably better for each party to have its own section. The one thing I don't agree with, however, is where to place the candidates. I think it would be better if there was just one section for all the candidates. This way if someone is pursuing the article, they can see all the candidates in one section. Also, the candidates wouldn't be repeated in the primary and general election sections. – Zntrip 06:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Each primary should be looked at as a seperate election. It simply makes it easier for the reader.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, that isn't a valid argument. The only primary section with any substance is the Republican one. The rest just list the candidates twice, once in the list of candidates and then again in the result table. If the list of candidates was at least at the beginning of the page it wouldn't look so repetitive. I'm also changing your edit to the external links section, because it is contrary to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Your tastes and preferences are irrelevant in that particular matter, so please don't change it just to be a contrarian. – Zntrip 23:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

photo of carly[edit]

Please stop refering to the lesser quality photo you are trying to add as a 2010 photo.. as the photo page says it was taken very early in 2007.. there are only 2 years separating the 2007 one and the 2005 one. the better quality one is not the 2007 one taking by a personal kodak camera with massive shadowing. -Tracer9999 (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BarbaraBoxer.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:BarbaraBoxer.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2011 (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 California, 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 15:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in United States Senate election in California, 2010[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of United States Senate election in California, 2010's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "results":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on United States Senate election in California, 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, 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: 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) 06:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_United_States_Senate_election_in_California&oldid=1196576370"