User talk:Rollins83/Archive 1

Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012

Please comment here for discussion about the possible addition of Phil Davison to the page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Rollins83/Archive 1! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the project. --Kumioko (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go and I hope you change your mind in the future. Plesae don't feel like you need to spend all your time with the project. All members are free to do as much or as little as they want. Every little bit helps. --Kumioko (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I may return at some point. I just don't have a lot of time presently to do much contributing to Wikipedia in general, but much less on projects.--Rollins83 (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

New Years Message for WikiProject United States

With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. If you do not want to recieve a monthly message please put an * before your name on the members page.--Kumioko (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2012

Please note that a "straw poll" has been added at Talk:United States presidential election, 2012#Straw poll for an issue you discussed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives collaboration

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts. There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 consideration v. 2012 election

At Chris Christie: All his consideration of running for president in the end seemed to me to be better described as "happening in 2011" than "related to the (eventual) 2012 election". Both are true. The links in the article to the primaries and the election each correctly connect to respective next year's events; and "presidential" I think is sufficient to tell unequivocally what we're talking about in the section. Writing this here, I have grown to like the distinction (which I introduced late, after a fair amount of work on the article and the course of events) because it helps emphasize just how far in advance of the eventual election we are, here and now. If the "2011" causes a reader to ask him/rself "Slightly off?", so much the better I'd say. It's not off. It's just far off, most of a year-and-a-half from conclusion. A gentle reality bump, if you will.

Among other things, going with 2011 would I assume put this article slightly, apparently out of step with many others. Consistency is good. But this seems a unique enough "moment" that we could go with the off-step. Any further thoughts? Cheers. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I am not so sure readers will get the "gentle reality bump" by seeing "2011" in the section head. More likely, they will think it a typo (as I did) and change it. That's my my take anyway. BTW, I added the word "election" to the section headline to make it clear that he was considering a run in the 2012 election, even though the speculation and consideration actually took place in 2011 (which is made clear in the text of the section). --Rollins83 (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I missed the addition of "election" which does also avoid, well (as in OK), the potential almost-confusion of the 2012 v. 2011 mismatch. I do still pretty strongly prefer my gambit and don't really care if readers "get" it consciously. It'd be there and, in all of its enjoyable (for me), useful complexity, works regardless. (That's why I said the "presidential" is "sufficient". In the context of a governor's article, "presidential" clearly signals only one thing. So we don't need also a reference to either 2012, to connect to the future event, or to election (except, as you've used it, to explain "2012"). Which finally brings us to the basic writing goal of simplicity and concision. ... Which noone would probably rush to apply to me. But ... if by going with "2011" one can cut two words ... one is more concise and simple. ... All goals of course being pursued only ... "within reason". ... But I ... [do] wax ....) The version as it now stands reads pretty awkward to me. But I'm also fine with it as is, and appreciate your consideration. All best. Swliv (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and consideration as well. If you'd like discuss this further, I would suggest doing so on the talk page of the Chris Christie article in order to gauge whether there is a consensus for your idea. I'm just one editor after all:)--Rollins83 (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Patrick

Sorry, I misread the source. Thanks for catching it. Tiller54 (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for fixing it.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to UBS may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:StamfordCTUBSNorthAmericanHQ11112007.jpg|thumb|right|250px|UBS Investment Bank's offices in

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

US presidential election, 2016

As an frequent contributor to the the article United States presidential election, 2016, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

As a significant contributor to the article United States presidential election, 2016, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Punjabi Language

Is there a Punjabi Wikipedia? 87.114.92.146 (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. [1].--Rollins83 (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! 87.114.92.146 (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)