You edited my talk page saying I had inquired about something in Massachusetts. I think you may be confused. I edited the "inquiry" page by adding sections. I did not inquire about Massachusetts.
I did inquire about citations, which has yet to be answered.
I noticed that in the chart for New Mexico 2010 ballot measures, you used the code in the chart for . However, in New Mexico, there are no initiated constitutional amendments. So, by definition, there would never be an on that state's ballot. The Ballotpedia article, States, has a list of 18 states where citizens can initiate constitutional amendments. If a state isn't on that list, you can know without further examination that any ballot measure on the ballot in that state is not an . I didn't fix it because I'm not sure if you made the mistake because you were in error about what kinds of ballot measures are allowed in New Mexico, or because you didn't have the right code. MMH 22:23, 3 January 2010 (CST)
Thanks for covering my states while I was gone. If you haven't started on them yet then I'll go ahead and write the articles. Unless you really want them. Thanks! Hope you had a good holiday. BaileyL 08:49, 30 December 2009 (CST)
Thanks for the message. I started to work on BP the second week of September and have recently become a full time staff writer. Currently living in Arizona, did my undergraduate studies at Trinity College in Washington DC and did a year of Study in Bonn Germany after that. I studied International politics for my undergraduate degree. I have been working on keeping track of any local elections going on the remainder of this year, but mostly finding measures that will be voted on in 2010. I have been organizing the 2009 local measures recently, currently i am organizing them by political topics. I think what interests me the most in organizing all the local measures is how similar topics are spread out over many states, mostly alcohol measures and tax issues. Hope that information helps, if you need anything else let me know! JohannaH 11:17, 22 December 2009 (CST)
Hey Al, I noticed that you created a year specific page for the recall efforts. I have a few recall articles I'm writing and wanted to know if you want me to add the articles to both the main recall article and the 2009 recall article (to make it easier for you) or should I just paste it in the main one? Thanks! BaileyL 11:23, 22 September 2009 (CDT)
I got your note on my talk page - can you link the two pages that you are talking about please? Thanks, Gardengnome 15:59, 10 July 2009 (CDT)
P.S. A quick way to sign notes like this is to use 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~. You'll usually find the tilde below the ESC key on the upper left of your keyboard, and need to hit shift to get it.
No big deal. I've just seen lots of errors lately with mislabeling. And I'm not saying that you made those errors either.
My newest creations
I am not taking credit for creating this. I just put it in template form and think it should be used for all veto referendum ballot measures. Veto referendums are oftentimes confusing to readers. A "YES" votes often upholds the measures. This means that the sponsors of veto referendums try for a "NO" vote. I don't think that most people understand that and that is why I created this.--Johnwynnejr 14:03, 27 January 2010 (CST)
Not sure what's going on with this article, but the content you added says in one place that this is an issue for veterans scholarships, but then in the fiscal impact portion, it says it's a bill requiring the secretary of state to provide voting systems at each polling location. --Bdb484 13:39, 23 September 2010 (CDT)
Just a test
Testing the email notifications. BaileyL 12:22, 25 October 2010 (CDT)
my edits to donor table
Hi, I am going through the finance reports. and there is ALOT :) take a look and see. I am listing the major donors, however it is impossible to list all the small $250 and $500 donors or it will need a new page just for the donor table. unfortunatly the totals the way they were on the mass ballot questions were way off. Im going to try to finish tonight. feel free to take a look after and see if I missed out on any that are important. Im trying to work from the top down. and stop at a reasonable number. People can still click on the actual reports from the ref to see the hundreds of other donors. let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. thanks -Hitman6999 20:13, 25 October 2010 (CDT)
Hey, I have a quick question about your chart for question 2 in MA. Im going through some of the reports and several of the top ones (that I did not delete) don't seem to exist in the campaign reports. So I want to make sure Im not screwing up here or something. I am pulling my numbers from http://www.efs.cpf.state.ma.us/SearchReportResults.aspx?cpfId=95358 or the Committee Against Repealing the Housing Law which seems to run the "Campaign to Protect the Affordable Housing Law" as thier is no ballot committee with the "Campaign to Protect the Affordable Housing Law" name. Also alot of these have cents and the state records do not include cents on reciepts. So im wondering if you were pulling these numbers from an article or alternate source that I am missing. Or are thier multiple committees you are pulling the numbers from? Please let me know so I can keep updating this. I don't want to add the wrong info and then have to duplicate my work later so Im going to hold off where Im at for now as it seems to be most of the really big donors. but please double check and make sure my we are pulling our numbers from the same place. thanks -Hitman6999 23:59, 25 October 2010 (CDT)
and also same question for question 1. according to state records the "Committee to Repeal the Alcohol Sales Tax" does not exist legally. Do they even have a website? i can't seem to find one. Can you tell me where those donation numbers came from and the committee name they are linked to on state records? thanks -Hitman6999 00:59, 26 October 2010 (CDT)
ah found it "Vote Yes on One Committee" is the legal name -Hitman6999 01:05, 26 October 2010 (CDT)
Big favor please
Could you do me a big favor please. It'll take a minute, and I promise I won't bother afer that.
Yes you do have those capabilities, lol
You're an administrator. Just click on the article interlink and then click "delete" at the top next to edit and history. --Johnwynnejr 14:49, 28 October 2010 (CDT)
Thanks for the edits
I proofread and fact check the work of others all the time and I think they sometimes get offended. On the other hand, when people do the same to my work, I truely appreciate it.
--Johnwynnejr 14:36, 20 May 2011 (CDT)
Massachusetts Death with Dignity Initiative
Thanks for refining this page and for the suggestion to learn more about the different components of the ballot measure articles. I'll go read more as soon as I have a little spare time. In the meantime, I noticed the reference for the Steve Crawford quote is a bit askew now. That quote actually came from a ' 'Boston Herald' ' article not the ' 'The Pilot Catholic News' '. Thanks again! Melissathebarber 11:48, 25 August 2011 (CDT)
Thanks for help with references -- I'm not an experienced Wiki-er.
Given the subject matter, I think that the official statement of the MS ACOG ought to carry at least as much weight as a blogger endorsement or even a newspaper editorial. It matters much more to voters here that a majority of doctors oppose 26 than that the Clarion-Ledger does. I understand rules are rules and that this does not meet the strict criteria of newspaper/blogger endorsements, but I think it's an important data point. I hope you'll consider leaving it up, but will respect your decision. Thanks, Atleebreland 16:08, 17 October 2011 (CDT)
Question: the NY Times today took an official editorial position against Initiative 26 . Even though they are not a state newspaper, are they appropriate material for the endorsements page? Atleebreland 09:16, 28 October 2011 (CDT)
Virginia Personhood Amendment (2014)
I just left a comment on User:Bailey's talk page to the effect that the Virginia "Personhood" Amendment (2012) article is not correct. The Virginia personhood measure is purely legislative, not a legislatively-referred amendment. If enacted by the General Assembly this spring, it will go into the Virginia Code without being subject to a popular vote.
I don't know how you might see fit to rework this article, or delete it entirely, but it's factually incorrect as written.
Atleebreland 21:30, 7 December 2011 (CST)