SLP Badge Transparent.png
Read the
State Legislative Tracker
New edition available now!




User talk:KaitlinE

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
KaitlinE, 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.

Portal:Elections
Primaries are well under way and November elections are just around the corner. Do you know your state's absentee voting and early voting policies? Does your state allow online voter registration? What are your state's voter ID laws?

Just click on the links above or find your state by clicking here.


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! --Bailey Ludlam, Ballotpedia editor


-- 11:00, 4 September 2013 (CDT)

Please see Talk:Mike Enzi. The Advocate was in error. I fixed the sections in both the Vitter and Enzi articles, and you restored the incorrect version without even contacting me for discussion. If you google the key phrase, you will see that every other website which originally copied that has now corrected it. I expect you to do the same. This is an encyclopedia. TomJx 16:24, 20 October 2013 (CDT)

As I said, there's a difference between keeping the original insurance plan (what The Advocate stated) and keeping a subsidy (what the bill and Vitter's own press release stated). That's why those sources originally using The Advocate's phrasing of "optional for lawmakers and their employees to continue receiving the subsidized premium health benefits plans just like most large businesses" later corrected their statements. I am satisfied with your corrections to the Enzi and Vitter articles, even if you want to pretend I made some totally different 'misinterpretation'. Anyone who googles for 'stop congress exempt' or similar can see the wild claims of the "conservative" groups and press. You may claim the National Review is a "bias source" (sic), but when even it feels the need to publicly debunk such claims.... TomJx 02:54, 24 October 2013 (CDT)


GuyB121 wrote:

Hi there

The reason I removed the tags on the Maine and Ohio Marijuana pages is to stop them appearing on the page "marijuana on the ballot" which only lists actual (as in not proposed) ballot measures.

If there is another way to remove it from this page without removing the tags please do so


KidTuck wrote:
You're welcome!


Loretta Lax Miller wrote:
Now what is the problem with me placing my name on the ballot


Patriot 8251 wrote:

Thanks for the fix.

Wayne


TomJx wrote:
Thanks - I'll follow that format in future.


James Egnor-Keil wrote:
Thank you for helping out with the Desmond Thorsson page. I just started Ballotpedia today, so there was sure to be a thing or two I missed or messed.


TomJx wrote:

http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do?&tabIndex=1&candidateCommitteeId=C00484642

3/8/2013 filing as the Senate Majority PAC

3/9/2011 filing as Majority PAC

6/11/2010 filing as Commonsense Ten


Rememberraul wrote:

Hey KaitlinE,

I am not great at these. I just left an new edit that does not allude to Jones current candidacy but does have this citation from a Los Angeles magazine. Can you look at it and help me get it right? Thanks!

Originally published by New Times Los Angeles December 21, 2000

http://www.slashdocs.com/ixuqpw/brained-raul-lopez-scientology-story.html


Rememberraul wrote:

KaitlinE,

He is running again. Did here is his website.

http://www.votebrentjones.com/


Campaignguy wrote:

KaitlinE,

Sorry I did not see that policy before. Thank you. I will make certain to note my interests in the future.

Thank you for the formatting changes. I look forward to making future contributions.


VigilantCitizen wrote:
Hi, regarding the updates to the "Calen Fretts" page, he is not running again in 2014. The website update on 3/18 was just to update the link to the archived campaign site from 2012, and you can see that the site still says 2012.


Regroce wrote:

I keep receiving messages that my entries are blocked because, according to the notice, my IP address was used by another person who's been blocked for posting vandalism/spam.

The IP address cited in the message is *not* my IP address, however, and which I can verify.

Can this block against my contributions be removed? I'd be happy to offer my actual IP address, along with source, if needed.


Travis Mitchell wrote:

Hi, you asked if I have a written reference to Bryan Lentz having three children. No, I do not. However, I saw them the other day, and there were definitely three.

Should I have refrained from correcting an entry such as this when I have only eyewitness knowledge?

This discussion page has been protected from further postings.