Talk:2018 United States Senate election in Virginia

GOP nomination
A lot of these sources are about a potential 2017 special election which obviously never materialized, so a lot of the entries listed shouldn't even be here. I am in the process of transitioning jobs, so I do not currently have time to read through all of them. If no one else has done so by January, I will go ahead and fix the section, though. ALPolitico (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

GOP Endorsements
Shouldn't we keep the endorsements for failed to qualify candidates? Since they did receive the endorsements, we should keep a record of that for history.- -74.110.185.157

Libertarian in Infobox
Just to clarify a 3rd party candidate needs to have received at least 5% in the last election to qualify for the infobox. Why is he being added? 2600:1700:E381:1590:B555:B585:BB03:CCEF (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * He's polling ≥5%, which is a secondary criteria as the 5% threshold from previous elections doesn't necessarily preclude their inclusion entirely. (This interpretation is useful to include notable third-party candidates if the party didn't contest the preceding election as well as notable high-polling/well-known independents like Greg Orman who would otherwise be arbitrarily excluded.) Mélencron (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are only 5 polls here and only 1 of them even has the Libertarian in it. Also, that is not a criteria to have a candidate in the info box.  2600:1700:E381:1590:158C:A434:EB9A:C33C (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a criteria as it's been applied since I started editing, but fine, I concede your point about there having only been one poll including Waters so far.Mélencron (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This discussion pops up on pretty much every U.S. election article, and I did just want to point to a relevant discussion from the elections WikiProject from earlier this summer that was somewhat inconclusive about the 5% standard. There was also a similar discussion about including 3rd party candidates when they were spoilers after an election has taken place, as in if they received more votes than the difference between the leading candidates. Both of these discussions were updates to a Request for Comment on the 5% topic that happened last year. The TL;DR is that if Matt Waters receives 5% of the vote, he can certainly be included in the infobox after the election. Many commenters however didn't think that 5% in a poll is sufficient.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 20:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I will happily revisit this if polls begin to include Waters and he consistently (aggregate) polls at or >5%. But one poll does not warrant that.  At least 3 I would say is fair.  Until then, he should not be included.  2600:1700:E381:1590:ED9C:3B13:E3BD:26C1 (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * An average of 5% is not the standard (though to be fair there is no set standard), and I personally think once you get 5% in any poll (which itself is a high bar for third parties), you should be afforded inclusion in the infobox.  Nevermore27  (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Amen, brother! -74.110.185.157 (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, don't we have consensus to add the Libertarian? It seems to me as if it is 3 to 1 (4 to 1 if you count the guy on the campaign) in favor of adding him. Correct me if I'm wrong or if someone changed their mind or something.-74.110.185.157 (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I am on the Matt Waters campaign and I am respectfully requesting this page to be fair and accurate, and include all 3 of the candidates that will be on the ballot in November. He was originally listed, just with no photo. We got his photo updated, and then he was removed completely. There will only be 3 candidates for Virginians to choose in November, why would this page not include all 3 of those candidates? After receiving the Libertarian Party nomination, the Libertarian candidate already had to submit over 14,000 petition signatures just to get on the ballot, where the Republican & Democratic candidates do not. Then nearly all "polls" conducted do not include the Libertarian candidate, so how can these polls even be used as an excuse to keep him off of this page? There is a poll that is not controlled, and is open for everyone to vote in (iSidewith.com), and includes every candidate that ran in this race, and in that poll, Matt Waters is actually polling almost even with Corey Stewart. There are almost 7,000 votes in that poll, and Matt Waters has reached up to 15%. Please keep this page fair and accurate. There are 3 candidates left in this race, and all 3 of those candidates should be reflected here on this page. Schultzjm1 (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello. Just chiming to ask that Waters be included. I get that there are rules, but if he qualifies under one of them (however tenuously), I think it would undermine Wikipedia's credibility as an independent organization not to include him. Or not - you guys are the people with accounts. Thanks for hearing me out! - Anon, 8/16/2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.185.157 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Matt Waters has been added back, just without photo. This is very appreciated. Am I allowed to add the photo back now, or does someone else need to do that? I believe the photo name is "Matt Waters, Libertarian candidate for US Senate" and is available in Wikipedia commons. Schultzjm1 (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the picture should be added, but get rid of the caption at the bottom first. I'm not anyone in authority, though. Anon, 8/17/2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.185.157 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Matt Waters has been added, and again removed from the infobox. Matt Waters received the Libertarian Party nomination, and then submitted over 14,000 petition signatures in Virginia to get certified to be on the ballot for this race in November. There will only be 3 candidates for Virginians to choose on this ballot, and all 3 should be reflected here if Wikipedia is a fair and non-bias platform. It has been mentioned multiple times that the requirement to appear in the infobox is polling at 5%. In the only poll that Matt Waters was even included on that is shared on this page, Matt Waters received 5% of the vote, and therefore MEETS the requirement to include in the infobox on this page. He has also polled at 15% in a non-controlled poll with almost 7,000 participants that included ALL of the candidates that ran in this race. In that poll Matt Waters is virtually even with Corey Stewart. It might not matter to you, but it matters to me, and it matters to the Matt Waters campaign team, and it matters to Libertarian voters in Virginia. Please do the right thing and add Matt Waters back to the infobox. Matt Waters. Libertarian Party. Photo= "Matt Waters, Libertarian candidate for US Senate". 65.114.140.49 (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This thread is getting a bit out of order, but I did just want to note that several of the above comments come from users or anonymous IP users that have become active in the last week and only seem to have edits on this article/topic. So, as a response to the user 74.110.185.157's above question about "consensus," I just want to make sure everyone is aware that sockpuppetry is not allowed, which is when an individual uses multiple accounts to make it look like different editors are agreeing. Additionally, editors close to the subject they are writing about, such as one on a candidate's campaign, raise conflict of interest issues, as paid editing is very strongly discouraged. I don't have a strong opinion about whether Matt Waters belongs in the infobox, please don't count me as a supporter. Personally, I think perhaps there's too much weight being placed on the infobox, and note he does have his own section on the article already.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 15:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is getting out of order and stuff. I assure you that I am not anyone else except myself. I edit things of interest to myself (generally political articles), and this is one of those things. If you look at the history of the article, I have edited it since before Waters was even nominated by the LPVA. I am not paid by anyone to edit anything. In full disclosure, I have donated a small amount to the Waters campaign, as well as the Nick Freitas campaign - do I have a conflict of interest? If so I will cease editing. The only person who I can see that only joined recently to edit this article is 2600:1700:E381:1590:158C:A434:EB9A:C33C (excluding the guy who works for Waters), and he is opposed to adding Waters. Mélencron and  Nevermore27  seem to support adding him, as do I. Perhaps this is just much ado about nothing, but Waters' employee seems to care. -74.110.185.157 17:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is a poll with 6,710 participants, that includes ALL the candidates in this race. Matt Waters is polling at 17%. Higher than Corey Stewart. https://www.isidewith.com/poll/3353417700 Schultzjm1 (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this has the potential to just go on and on unless we come to a solid decision. Can we create a poll on whether or not he should be included, and if he can't then under exactly what circumstances could he, and then just stop talking about it until he meets those circumstances (in the event he isn't just added straightaway). I would create one myself right now, but I don't exactly know if there is any etiquette to it or not (also how to do it).74.110.185.157 (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up, there is an open discussion on this exact topic at Wikipedia's central policy discussion talk page, and I think any user with an opinion should voice theirs there. If a consensus is made from that discussion, I would suggest we follow it's lead, but yes, if there is a clear consensus among editors on a given article, the article can always go its own way no matter the policy. One other note, internet surveys have been constantly rejected as reliable sources, and so shouldn't really be used to base any arguments.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 14:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now commented on that discussion, but I think you misunderstood my use of the word poll - I meant right here in this talk page. That said, it was just an idea, and if other editors (particularly official ones, unlike myself hehe) prefer to reach consensus in some other way that's fine.74.110.185.157 (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, I understand what you mean, asking users to Support or Oppose a proposal is perfectly fine, and that's why I said that if editors on a specific article, like this one, support something then it doesn't matter what other policies folks have elsewhere on Wikipedia. Last bit of wikilawyering that I'll do however, is just to mention that polls on Wikipedia don't equal consensus.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 20:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the help, this is the first time I've been involved in a long discussion.74.110.185.157 (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I will now do that. To everybody: do you Support or Oppose adding Matt Waters to the infobox? Personally, I Support it but would prefer any picture added not to include a caption.74.110.185.157 (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I SUPPORT adding Matt Waters back to the infobox, and including a brief sentence about him back in the main body of the article as it was before being removed. Schultzjm1 (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support If a candidate is on the ballot, they should be in the infobox. A picture is worth a thousand words and readers who come to this article are going to want to know their choices. It's our goals as Wikipedia editors to provide an informative article.  Besides, it's not as if Wikipedia is running out of hard drive space.  There's no good reason not to include them.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I believe in the 5% standard, which is a consensus upheld time and again for ~10 years. Some folks who like the 5% standard prefer it to be an average of polls, but my personal standard only requires 5% in one poll.  Nevermore27  (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I really feel like there is a consensus on this talk page, both in the vote and in regular discussion. I will add Waters.74.110.185.157 (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone understand why Matt Waters photo keeps getting removed for copyright issues, when it is a photo of himself, that he uploaded to Wikipedia Commons himself. I can't believe this is so difficult. Any help appreciated. Schultzjm1 (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can explain why it is automatically flagged for deletion, which is that there is Exif metadata in the file that shows it copyrighted to the website karismariephotography.com. Re-uploading a deleted file is also likely to get the uploader blocked for further uploads. In order to upload a file with a copyright, you need the copyright holder to send an email to Wikimedia's Open-source Ticket Request System.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 14:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Matt Waters, 2018 candidate for US Senate (cropped).jpg

Cygnal Poll edit war
I notice there's been a bit of a back and forth about the latest poll that was added to the General Election Polling section, and whether to mark it with a "(R)" or not. Looking into it, I have found several news sites that refer to Cygnal as a "Republican consulting firm." They do have a "B" rating from FiveThirtyEight, even with a tiny Democratic bias, though that's based on only 2 polls. POOLHOUSE is a Richmond based political ad agency that makes commercials exclusively for Republican candidates; see their Vimeo page for examples. A poll that's paid for by an individual candidate/their Super PAC/their party should certainly be designated as partisan, but other than that, I'm honestly not sure what the Wikipedia standard is on this issue. From what I found though, I feel that leaving the "(R)" off this particular poll is more misleading that including it. Thoughts?-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 14:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the firms involved are de facto Republican operatives, if not de jure, I think it's better to include the (R).  Nevermore27  (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Write-in candidate
Winsome Sears has launched a write-in campaign. Not asking for inclusion in the infobox, but I feel she warrants a mention somewhere. Should we add a new section about her, or note her candidacy somewhere else?74.110.185.157 (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)