Talk:Kay Hagan

message: The March 8, 2008 revision of this article by Kalliope O'Donnell (Talk | contribs) was taken, wholesale, from http://www.kayhagan.com/about/about-kay/ without any revision, NPOV considerations or, even verb tense/agreement alterations.  I have excised the changes, as they were nothing but campaign fodder. Kalliope is welcome to reintroduce the info, so long as it is neutral, original and well-cited. — Mustang_DVS (talk | contribs) 19:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Violation

message: I am requesting that this article is renamed Kay Hagan, which would simply remove the middle initial from the title. While her state senate page lists the middle initial, Hagan does not use it on her campaign site or in her commercials. The article on Elizabeth Dole is named similarly, and I feel that this rename hews more closely to Wikipedia's common names policy than its current name. Bridger (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This request also conforms to the conventions set up in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people) especially Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Middle_names_and_abbreviated_names H acton (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: There have been six edits in two weeks which removed the picture of Kay Hagan that I uploaded. The license for the picture has not been challenged, and most of the edits have been by non-registered users. Five of them gave no explanation for the picture removal, but the most recent edit said the picture was "sabotaged" (although there hadn't been any edits of the image since September 23). What is going on here? Is this enough to warrant semi-protection of the page until after Election Day? Bridger (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On my machine, the picture looks BLACK. It's either a negative, or someone somehow is vandalizing it to make her look like a monster. I don't know what's causing the problem; maybe there's a problem with the picture, or maybe there's a problem with the renderer. Ngchen (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

text: It is a renderer problem, maybe there are issues with the automatic resizing. I'll see what I can do to fix it. Ngchen (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

text: FWIW, Firefox renders the shrunk version as the "monster," while IE simply does not display it, shrunk or not shrunk. Ngchen (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry to accuse you of vandalism...and thanks for telling me about the rendering problem with the picture. I was only left to guess after several edits simply removed the picture without an explanation. I didn't realize there was a rendering problem, since it showed up on my computer fine (with Firefox). I have uploaded a smaller version of the picture in its place. I've tested it on two computers, both using Firefox and IE, and it seems to have done the trick. Please let me know if you're still having a problem viewing it. Bridger (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  I see there's still a problem. I'll see what I can do. Bridger (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  A previous version you had works! As such I reverted to it. The "monster" image showed up on Mac Safari 2.0.4. Ngchen (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Awesome! Thanks again for letting me know there was a problem. Bridger (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Removal Vandalism 

message: Hagan, as of 9:49 ET 11/4/08, is officially the winner of the NC U.S Senate election.  This is after the Dole concession speech.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.102.254.33 (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hagan Win  

message: I note that there are two different birthdays listed, November 18, 1951, and May 26, 1953.  Which is it?
:Yeah, seriously. Which one is it?? Pvegeta (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/11/04/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-kay-hagan.html says May 26, 1953.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.234.148 (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthday

message: A major omission from the article- what are her political positions? Did she manage to get through an entire campaign without stating any? Please add if anyone can find. What is her position on a GM/Ford/Chrysler bailout? I saw that she appeared with Harry Reid yesterday at a press conference in DC on that subject.--Gloriamarie (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Political positions

message: This section is currently the largest in the article by far.  This seems inappropriate, particularly given the relative significance of the topic.  Any objections to removing the third paragraph of the section?CFredkin (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The whole section on her 2008 election is very well written and just because the rest of the article needs improving and updating, there's no need to go around pruning the one good section. Tiller54 (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is that currently the article gives WP:undue weight to a campaign ad run by her opponent in the 2008 election.  In the context of her bio, it doesn't seem significant enough to warrant such prominence.CFredkin (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godless Ad 

message: This edit regarding Hagan's voting record was reverted as "unsourced POV".  The content is well-sourced (WRAL, National Journal) and neutrally worded.CFredkin (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you just purposely link to your edit adding that portion and not the removal in order to mischaracterize the reason it was removed? The removal was in two part as described in the edit summary(Removed unsourced POV + 51st most liberal senator isn't notable, whereas 'most moderate' may be -take it to Talk). That would be a pretty dishonest way to start a Talk page discussion. The 'unsourced POV' was the anon ip edit, and the '51st most liberal Senator isn't notable' was addressing yours. And no, it most defintely was not neutrally worded. Unless you mean from an oppo research POV. On your previous attempt to add the material I told you the article states it's 'technically true', while it's more straightforward to state she is the most moderate Senator. The 'context' is explained in the article you linked to. It's a lot better to discuss these types of edits and try to use the Talk page than to keep reinserting the same material again and again. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting record