Talk:Tom Riner

re: Jamesjohnson1945
This user has been consistently removing material and has been reverted many times. The next time you revert his change, please make sure to post an escalated warning template on his talk page. Thanks. --Mblumber (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Riner has not filed for re-election as of today's date (1/15/10), so it is incorrect that Slaton is challenging him. Sorry if this isn't formatted correct, I've never posted before on a discussion page. I'm reverting. I assume Riner is going to run, but until he announces or files his paperwork (which is due very soon), it's not really pertinent that Slaton is running for Riner's current seat, nor does his web-site need to be referenced on Riner's page. 74.241.45.90 (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Slaton filed on 1/19/2010
Check out this link for proof. Whether he's raised enough money for an anonymous user's tastes is immaterial. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not denying that Slaton is running for the seat. My point is that Riner has not filed any paperwork to run for reelection, so it is factually untrue that he is being challenged by Slaton. Tomorrow is the filing deadline. Maybe he will file, maybe he won't. But the statement is not factually true at the moment. Your link doesn't address the point in the least, so, Stevie, drop the attitude about me being anonymous and give a reference for the fact that Tom Riner is running for re-election. Until tomorrow, it doesn't exist, and might not then. 74.178.136.44 (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Alleged Crack Pot
This guy is now national news, yet no where in his WP article is this represented. Crazy Kentuckians get your shiit together! --74.104.51.157 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I'd call the guy a “crack pot,” because I know very little about him, but he certainly did push religion into Kentucky politics. As a non-believer I'm displeased with the statute he sponsored and disappointed that it wasn't overturned. Be that as it may, I'm also disappointed that early versions of this article described Riner's statute in a manner that highlighted outrage and short-changed us on details. I have little experience at editing on Wikipedia but I addressed this problem as well as I could. Timothy Campbell (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)