User talk:JoshMcCullough

COI

Hi JoshMcCullough, thanks for declaring that you're a member of Robert Sarvis's campaign staff - that saves everyone, you included, a lot of headaches. Please read and familiarize yourself with WP:COI. Let me or anybody else know if you have any questions. Thanks, Instaurare (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, thanks. JoshMcCullough (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your edit here

[1] How is this not redundant? Instaurare (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find it redundant unless I misunderstood. The original (that I reverted to) mentioned two thresholds. The original which was "at least 10% in major polls" and then the second threshold (they changed the "rules") which states "at least 10% average in major polls as indicated on RealClearPolitics.com". (Or similar, not actual quotes.) So, the original was pointing out the rule change whereas your version did not. I think it's an important piece to include. FWIW I tried to figure out how to comment on your edit instead of reverting it but couldn't. In the future, I'll just leave you a message, I guess? Thanks. JoshMcCullough (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that's changing the rules. It's just clarification. Instaurare (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you don't know what the RealClearPolitics average is; it aggregates and averages all of the polls. [2] Instaurare (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two sets of rules are completely different. If the initial rules stuck, Sarvis would have been invited to the debates because he got >10% on multiple major polls. Mysteriously, 3 weeks prior to the decision say (10/10) they changed the rules to be >10% average across the polls as reported on RCP.com. Obviously it's harder to get that average above 10% especially when it goes back as far as three weeks. They included old/irrelevant polling data when they should have included a handful of the most recent polls. What's funny is that if you look at RCP.com now, Sarvis is at 10% - just 5 days after the decision was made, now he is "eligible". http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2013/governor/va/virginia_governor_cuccinelli_vs_mcauliffe_vs_sarvis-4111.html JoshMcCullough (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a source that explicitly says the rules changed, it's fine, but until then it's original research. Instaurare (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check the references on the actual section in question! https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Virginia_gubernatorial_election,_2013#Virginia_Tech_debate JoshMcCullough (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]