This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofAlaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I was the person who added information regarding candidates, and attempted to improve the formatting of the page, prior to these edits. The edits which followed just compound the headline-level issues I was attempting to correct. And what for, so that the Republican and Democratic parties could be highlighted above all else? Please explain, if you would.RadioKAOS (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to follow up on that: I once again fixed the headline levels so as to eliminate the 4th-level headline. The candidate lists are broken up into Democratic, Other and Republican, listed alphabetically. The links to campaign websites were updated, also listed alphabetically.
The problem I had with the interim series of edits were that they spotlighted the Democratic and Republican parties, and made anything else outside of those parties appear diminished. In Alaska, the Alaskan Independence Party is a legitimately recognized party just like the other two. Therefore, you run the risk of violating neutrality considerations.
It would also appear that information added to this page in those edits came directly from the Parnell campaign website, but I don't want to dwell too much on that right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.69.17 (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hope that anyone else out there is paying attention. I have been trying to keep this page updated, but with 2 months left until the filing deadline, the status of candidates will likely change more rapidly. Moreover, my livelihood generally occurs far away from the Internet. I doubt I'll have the time necessary to maintain things strictly by myself.
RadioKAOS (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up on that: 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) 05:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to Sarah Palin in the lead is pointless and gratuitous. Palin had little or nothing to do with the 2010 governor's race.
The mention of Norm Olson as Don Wright's running mate is flat out false, sourced or not. In case we've all forgotten already, Olson expressed an interest in the position, but was under the impression that Wright would be replaced on the ballot by Bill Walker. Olson then declined the position when he learned that this would not be the case.
The section on campaign finance was tagged as outdated, yet nothing was done with it. The information has been there all along on APOC's website. Is there a lack of willingness to make use of that resource because it's a local source, rather than some anonymous third-party website which meets the prevailing notion of "reliable?"RadioKAOS (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold. Fix stuff yourself. If nobody else cares enough to have fixed it, chances are nobody will care enough to revert you. – Hysteria18(Talk • Contributions) 17:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Alaska gubernatorial election, 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.
