Jump to content

Talk:2010 United States Senate election in Kentucky

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

Primary date?

[edit]

Does anyone have any idea what date the primary will occur? Even just which month? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is usually the Tuesday before Memorial Day, which is in May. Willking1979 (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates section

[edit]

The Candidates section should be arranged in some type of hierarchical structure. The current arrangement of categories is not good. I'll try to come back and fix it if I get a chance. Or you can. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 06:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declined needs actual references

[edit]

In the Declined section, there needs to be a reference that actually talks about the respective candidate considering the race, or some government record that shows they registered for the race in some way. Until that happens, the fact tags need to stay. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Johnson Unemployed man

[edit]

Bill Johnson is not currently in employment. However describing him as 'an unemployed man' makes him sound like a bum and seems like a calculated bias against him: as such it is akin to vandalism. RicoRichmond (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that all employment descriptions have now been removed from the Republican primary section (but not the Democratic primary section). I am not sure I see the logic behind this; is not the description useful? Has it been removed since one candidate is not employed, or for some other reason? --darolew (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the work of 'CullVernon'. I don't see the Logic of it myself. He seems obssesed with having Bill Johnson classified 'an unemployed man', and seems to think that anybody who raises any objection to this is a 'vandal'. Go ahead and put them back if you want, I'll back you up. RicoRichmond (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about we describe Johnson as a 'businessman', without mentioning he is unemployed? That is how he is described on his website and here. --darolew (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go along with that. RicoRichmond (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see CullVernon has re-added that Johnson is unemployed, without discussing it. (He also reverted my previous edit which alphabetized the candidates by last name; I have re-alphabetized them.) I do not personally think it matters much whether Johnson is described as 'unemployed' or not; however, since other editors do, it would be nice to reach a consensus on the talk page. --darolew (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair 'currently unemployed buisnessman' dosn't sound as bad as 'unemployed man'. Never the less *NONE* of the candidates are currently doing much except campaign, so to be consistent you would have to describe them *ALL* as 'currently unemployed'. Unless'CullVernon' has something to contribute on the talk page it will be reverted. RicoRichmond (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson has dropped out; I think this point is now moot. --darolew (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'll take down the link to his site. RicoRichmond (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting major candidates with pics - Encyclopedic?

[edit]

I think the aspect of highlighting the "major" candidates is unencyclopedic. We cannot decide who the major candidates are. All candidates running are supposed to have an equal footing in coverage in an encyclopedia. If there is some kind of precedent for doing this, it should be brought to the fore; otherwise, the highlighting pics should be removed. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think this is what's happening? The candidates with images are, to my knowledge, the only ones with images available on Wikipedia or Commons. The other ones don't have images available, but if they did, they'd be in the galleries too. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then that is more fair, I suppose. I was just under the impression that these pics are being included only because somebody made a judgment (vis a vis the mainstream media) that these are the only "real" candidates running. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be better to include them in the gallery with a placeholder image? This would have the advantage of advertising in the article the need for a free image. --darolew (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would harm anything, although I think it's likely that we won't get images for many of them. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 07:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine as it currently stands. Either remove the pictures, or leave it the way it is. Gage (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added images of all three minor GOP candidates, if you think they should stay, fine, if not, I'm fine with that as well. Gage (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They should stay; indeed, I do not see any possible reason to remove them. Good work. --darolew (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement Revoked

[edit]

I am no longer endorsing Rand Paul. You can either remove the section or note that I have revoked my endorsement publicly. Contact me if you need a reference on the subject. (k.joshua.koch<at>gmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.166.190 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? Stonemason89 (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing this is him: http://www.lpky.org/node/194. He's not on the list though. --StormCommander (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bunning section?

[edit]

I was just checking out this article to see the state of this election. I find the initial Bunning section to be unnecessary and off the point - seems to me the decision that he is not running is covered adequately in the introduction. What do the Bunning statements/controversies have to do with the 2010 election? I would be in favor of just deleting that section, perhaps replaced with a brief sentence directing the reader to the Bunning article for more information as to why he decided not to run. Bdushaw (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am serious, but perhaps that article section has confused me. My view is that Bunning has nothing to do with the 2010 election - that is the past, so why does the article start out with the past? From your response (and I speak from complete neutrality and ignorance of Kentucky politics), I gather that it was a surprise that Bunning did not run, hence that is relevant, i.e., suddenly there is a new political situation in Kentucky. If so, the section is missing some things... e.g., perhaps it should start out with something like "While it was assumed that Bunning would coast to an easy victory in the 2010 election, a series of missteps and controversies made Bunnings re-election untenable. He therefore made a surprising announcement not to run, making the Kentucky senate race competitive." Even so, the details of the comments and actions don't seem all that relevant to me for the election - unless they are a real issue in the campaign. As it reads now, the section just lists some things that Bunning said and did...and so what? The section should explain why these things are relevant to the 2010 election, seems to me. Merely some feedback from a casual wikipedian... Bdushaw (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I agree. It absolutely should not be the first section of the article, if it is necessary at all. Somnambulent (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign issues and controversies

[edit]

I believe that there is a consensus to move all the issues and controversies, which are not directly related to one or another candidate, should be place in this article, rather than their biographies. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC) I've requested input at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rand_Paul_et_al. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The head-stomping incident, which continues to generate daily press, was removed from the Rand Paul article under a claim that it should be in this article instead. The fact that this article is pitifully short and un-detailed, since nearly all information about the campaign is in FACT in the biographies of Rand Paul and Jack Conway should not be allowed to justify removing it from this article too. If somebody wants to add more information about the campaign, that would be great. Repeated deletion of the stomp incident is inappropriate. betsythedevine (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The third deletion in less than 24 hours by exactly the same editor: [1] [2] [3] Leaving insulting comments as edit summaries is not a good substitute for discussion on the talk page, where the consensus is that the widely-discussed in connection with the election stomping incident belongs in the article. Make it better if you think it is POV.betsythedevine (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I filled in the county map

[edit]

I filled in the county map and uploaded and linked it, but for some reason it isn't appearing on the page when it loads. If someone could look into this it would be helpful.Masebrock (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The servers have a problem with thumbnails currently I guess. Can you try the "show preview" button? Thanks Hekerui (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the image for the time being, it has no source for the county numbers anyway. Hekerui (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not appearing on show preview, but I added the source of the county numbers, CBS News (100% precincts reporting). I think it would be helpful to have at least the link to the image there, even if the image isn't showing on the article page, people can view it by following the link.Masebrock (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has fixed the problem.Masebrock (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Louisville.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Flag of Louisville.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. 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) 14:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Senate election in Kentucky, 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: 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 04:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on United States Senate election in Kentucky, 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: 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 09:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on United States Senate election in Kentucky, 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: 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 23:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on United States Senate election in Kentucky, 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: 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) 11:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States Senate election in Kentucky, 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: 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) 04:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_United_States_Senate_election_in_Kentucky&oldid=1244401222"