User talk:JoshA

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

JoshA, 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 editing, or contact us.

Welcome to our community! -- Ballotpedia editor

-- 12:20, 8 August 2012 (CDT)

Hi Josh! Welcome to Ballotpedia. BaileyL 12:20, 17 August 2012 (CDT)

RupertClayton wrote:

Hi Josh. Thanks for your comprehensive coverage of the measures on the ballot in San Francisco in November. I notice that for Props H and I you state that: "If both this measure and the competing initiative are approved, the one with the most votes will be enacted, while the other is rejected."

My understanding is that the poison pill provision of Section 2 of Prop I, combined with its much more expansive scope, means that even if Prop H gets more votes than Prop I, Prop I's restrictions on voters' ability to challenge future projects will still take effect, even though the city will need to keep artificial turf and night-lighting out of the western end of Golden Gate Park.

I have been involved with the campaign for Prop H and against Prop I, so making this change myself would be a conflict of interest. Is that something you'd be willing to update?


RupertClayton wrote:
Thanks for the quick response, and for the work you have put into coverage of these measures.
This discussion page has been protected from further postings.