Welcome to Ballotpedia! Thank you very much for your contributions to the Washington Income Tax, Initiative 1098 (2010) article. Please let me know if you have any questions, suggestions or concerns. Thanks! BaileyL 13:33, 1 September 2010 (CDT)
Thank you for the addition of the EOI tax calculator to the I-1098 article. I've gone ahead and relocated the chart to a "reports and analysis" section where either information regarding the calculator or the organization that created it can be added. BaileyL 05:57, 29 September 2010 (CDT)
Title of the measure
I feel that it is POV to describe I-1098 as simply the Washington Income Tax initiative. I took the title from the ballot title: "Initiative Measure No. 1098 concerns establishing a state income tax and reducing other taxes."
I can understand your disagreement. It is Ballotpedia's policy to add a keyword that describes the measure so as to make the article easier to find. Anybody interested in the article can either search by I-1098 or "income tax initiative" and find the article. As per the WA title, the initiative is about an income tax and as such the keyword for the article is income tax. Additionally, several media sources and policy documents have named it the "income tax initiative." There are several tax issues on the ballot and this helps differentiate this measure from others. The reason why the official "ballot title" is not used in the first sentence is because that is stated in the "text of the measure" section which includes all of the official voter guide information. The first sentence and paragraphs are a brief overview of the issue.
Of course, I do understand your concern and it is very difficult to issue one or two words to a measure for our "keyword" purpose but we have not received any complaints about the Ballotpedia title of this article thus far. If you are still concerned about this, you can a note to the talk page of the article. In the mean time I will discuss this further with other Ballotpedia staff. BaileyL 16:46, 4 October 2010 (CDT)
Recent edits on I-1098
Hi Andrew. In light of the massive edits and "edit warfare" on I-1098 today I'm going to go through each and every edit made. I'll be reviewing the sources and language used. Because I suspect that as the elections approach this article may become a big point of discussion, I'm inviting you to discuss any discrepancies or concerns on the talk page of the article. This should help ease and prevent major "edit warfares." Thanks! BaileyL 10:41, 5 October 2010 (CDT) (This same message is being sent to other contributors of that page.)
BaileyL: I appreciate your intervention in the edit wars. I feel that I've been trying to bring some balance to the article since before I'm not sure that it had much sustained involvement from the pro-1098 side. Also with respect to the title, I'll concede the point. Leaving the title as it is will probably bring more traffic from Google, which is in all of our interests.
Thanks Andrew. On a more recent note: We had quite the influx of user changes to the Washington measures last night. As usual, I will be reviewing every single change today. Like I've told those users, I encourage you to use the Talk page for discussion. Thanks!BaileyL 07:30, 13 October 2010 (CDT)
Just wanted to take a minute and say thanks for hanging in there on 1098 through the thicks and thins of the last few weeks of editing. It's really turned into an incredibly informative article. Leslie Graves 14:52, 27 October 2010 (CDT)