User talk:CAElectionsWatch

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome. Really glad you're here. I saw that California Proposition 6 (2008) had been POVed but hadn't had time to go clean it up. Calgal 16:03, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

CAElectionsWatch, welcome to Ballotpedia!

We're glad you're here. Here's how to get started:

1. Watch Ballotpedia's 5-minute overview.
2. Learn more about how you can contribute to our monthly projects.
January's Project of the Month
This month we are talking about navigation on the site. Navigating Ballotpedia is easy once you are familiar with the many ways you can move through the site's contents. Check out our quick instructions on the ways you can access all of Ballotpedia's information on our help page.

To further enhance your wiki-browsing skills, learn about other navigation tools such as our Index of Contents, "All pages" tool and "What links here" tool. If you find two pages are related but do not link to each other, consider adding an internal link in the "See also" section or submit a link by e-mailing us at

Help.png Have a question? Contact us at

3. Find an article you'd like to improve.
4. Start editing!

You can also view tutorials on how to edit, or contact us.

Welcome to our community! --Bailey Ludlam, Ballotpedia's managing editor

edits to Proposition 6

I saw your edits to Proposition 6 and think that it was important to not remove the primary argument by opponents, which, from their website is related to budgetary concerns.

I also believe that the fact that Nicholas, the funder solely responsible for this initiative being on the ballot was indicted is a central one and should be placed prominently. If you research this initiative's history, you will find that it had not raised sufficient funds to gather signatures and was not going to make the ballot. It only made the ballot because of Nicholas' last minute decision to donate $1 million. Thus, his role in placing the initiative on the ballot and his indictment is one that voters should be aware of. I put this back in the article with clear references.

--Cacitizen 10:33, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

This discussion page has been protected from further postings.