User talk:Boromir123

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! ElinorD (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please explain your actions
Why have you been deleting my contributions to the Russell Pearce article? I have explained my position several times, but instead of contributing a valid response, you merely keep deleting my contributions. Do you believe this is fair? If so, don't you believe that you have an obligation to explain why, in a rational, critical manner? Monoxide 04:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monoxide (talk • contribs)

Thanks
Hey, I was just looking at the page for Gov. Jindal and it looks like you've been doing a great job over there. Keep up the good work! - Schrandit (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Did you see this discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=337689481&oldid=337130963? - When you get a chance please add your comments. Radiantenergy (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Boromir123! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Marnix Van Holsbeeck -

addition
saw the edit on the voting record. I was going to check on that myself later because it seemed POV. Thanks for the clarification. Malke 2010  02:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Summary: A couple of users have given me some advice that I should explain the reasons for deletion/changes either on an article discussion page or on the edit summary. I promise to be more diligent in this regard in the future.Boromir123 (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Blogs
Just a quick note - there is a significant difference between a blog by a newspaper reporter done on a newspaper website, and a personal blog. The first is a reliable source; the second is (almost always) not. To quote the guideline:


 * Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Rajendra K. Pachauri
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 13:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for improving the sourcing here. Please be aware, however, that as discussion at the talkpage had not reached consensus for inclusion of the text in question, this was edit warring. Please in future participate in such discussions instead of reverting the article text. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
I appreciate your work on the McDonnell page. It received a well-deserved and long overdue facelift. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.241.212 (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts to Bob McDonnell Article
Related message, Related edit 1, related edit 2

I am sorry for exceeding the three revert rule. Per the talk page, we had already engaged in a discussion with the majority of editors believing that Galraedia's edits were unwarrented. Furthermore, Galraedia has resorted to name calling on the article talk page. Could you add a semi-protection tag on the page? Boromir123 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Btw, I will steer clear of making edits on the article for the next 24 hours:) Boromir123 (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can of course add the template, but that won't solve anything as an administrator needs to protect the article before it has any effect :). I dropped you, Galraedia and Soxwon a note on the issue, and i left a custom message at Galraedia for adding level 4 equivalent warning templates. I *hope* that this is enough to quell the current edit war (Sometimes a template can do wonders, as your comment shows), but if it remains to be an issue feel free to add a note on WP:AN3 or WP:ANI describing the situation. I don't think protection is in order as it would keep everyone from editing the article, not just the involved party's in the conflict. Kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 22:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There has been no name calling on the talk page other then Boromir123 and Soxwan's incapability to read. Also I would like to requests that these "majority of editors" be looked into because I have found two that have a history of conflicts with other editors and that have been accused of removing sections that do not conform to their bias.  Thanks.Galraedia (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ehm, technically you just said that both editors are biased, and that they cannot read. However, regardless of the situation, edit warring is not the answer and actually forbidden trough the WP:3RR rule, which you crossed. If you have a conflict with other editors you should first try to mediate it on the talk page, and if that does not work, seek a third opinion or dispute resolution. As any account can revert easily, you would be busy till next morning reverting eachother, and that would not help anyone at all :). Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 22:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ehm, technically that is not "name-calling". They should actually consider it a compliment because there are far worser things that could be said about them; however, I choose to keep those things to myself. :)  Mediating it on the talk page as you have suggested has done nothing to solve the problem. They believe that they have consensus although not everyone is in agreement, and if not everyone is in agreement how can they have consensus?   And if I crossed any rule then so have they.  However, since editors, such as Soxwan (who has a history of conflicts with others) is brown-nosing I don't really expect you to care.Galraedia (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Both Boromit123 and Soxwon made 3 reverts today, which means they (just) stayed within limits. I gave them a warning nonetheless to make sure they are not going over the limit. But even if they did your argument would be WAX, as you reverted 6 times today. Also, have a look at WP:Consensus. Consensus is rarely unanimous, and neither does it have to be (We would never, EVER get anything done around here if that was a requirement :-) ). From the reverts in the past few days it is visible that 5 editors have reverted your changes, and 2 (including yourself) seem to uphold them. At the very least we can conclude that you don't have consensus for your changes either.


 * As for me caring: Yes i do, or i wouldn't get myself involved with this edit war. Edit wars have never, ever solved a problem, and therefor i rather see them mediated or discussed instead of fought. I have restored the article to its pre-edit war state, and i HOPE the three, four, five of you - i don't care about the amount - can come to some form of compromise regarding this article. However, i have no issue taking this to WP:RPP if the edit war continuer's, or to WP:AN3 \ WP:ANI if there are more 3RR violations. I know i am replying to you at this time, but naturally this goes for any party involved. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 23:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Excirial did you even read the talk page on the article in discussion? The changes made were reverted before they even tried to reach a consensus.  And if a person didn't see the section before it was reverted how could they possibly argue to keep something that they haven't even seen?  Also, there were 3 people (including myself) who were okay with it.  Like I told those against keeping the section, this is Wikipedia and not Faux News.  Showing only one side of the story, as the editors in question want, doesn't present a NPOV.  So, while you threaten me with a 3RR for changing it you also allow a violation to a NPOV.  I believe that you are showing favoritism to editors like Soxwon for brown-nosing, because regardless of the conflicts that they seem to get in for removing other people's work they are allowed to remain here regardless of whether or not it was justified.  I am not intimidated by you Excirial and I have another place in mind where you can put your RPP, AN3 and ANI. Galraedia (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If I may jump in, Galraedia, as we have repeatedly stated, THE INFORMATION SHOULD GO IN! REPEAT, THE INFORMATION SHOULD GO IN! I have repeatedly stated this as have other editors. What we don't want is a controversy section as this is considered bad by wikipedia standards and, in general, does look bad. What is better is to find appropriate places in the article for the information to go. Honestly, we don't need to make a huge issue out of this but you refuse to compromise on how the information should be presented in even the slightest manner. Soxwon (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Galraedia, i am not trying to intimidate you, nor do i wish to threaten you with 3RR. If you believe my comment was meant that way then i am sorry, as i obviously didn't relay my intentions correctly. The only thing that i really care about, is trying to stop several editors from reverting each other over and over again. Generally this only sours relations between editors, and makes it unlikely people will even try to find a compromise, Most times unchecked edit wars end up in accusations from both sides, mostly not even on the subject anymore. For what it is worth: I personally believe information should be unbiased, and yes, that means criticism should be allowed - provided it is reliably sourced and not taking up 90% of the article. Seeing Sox comment i would say both of you agree that it should be kept. However, the issue here is how it should be presented in the article (A separate section or merged in the rest of the text). Since both of you already agree on the content, is it really that hard to debate the presentation of that content? :)


 * I would urge you all to find some middle ground where everyone is happy or at least acceptive, or that you seek dispute resolution. Reverting each other over and over ad infinitum won't ever solve anything, and those situations just tend to end in page protection, ani drama and all kind of other consequences i prefer seeing used against vandals, instead of constructive editors. And yes, i would label everyone here as constructive, as all of you at least take the time to discuss things. :) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 08:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Meg Whitman
Recently I made an edit to the 2010 Campaign for California Governor section of the Meg Whitman article regarding her endorsement by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and you quickly reverted claiming it was "value judgement/commentary". That is Meg Whitman's biggest and most important edorsement and I think it should be noted. It is her most important endorsement for several reasons: Condoleezza Rice is the former U.S. Secretary of State, the most powerful position in the United States federal government after only the President and Vice President. Although she is not currently holding that title, she is still the most powerful woman within the Republican Party. An endorsement of a candidate that comes from a President (or former Pres.), Vice President (or former VP), and Secretary of State (or former SoS) are generally considered to be the most valuable or important endorsements in politics because these are the most powerful and highest ranking officials of the U.S. federal government. So my edit was a good one. An endorsement from Secretary Rice is far more valuable than one from Mitt Romney or John McCain. Endorsements from the Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, and other very senior, prominent or popular U.S. senators or Governors are also usually very valuable, but still they do not generally carry us much weight as one coming from a former Secretary of State. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.169.0 (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Eric Massa
Any reason why you wish to bring up the story of the 2006 Election in the resignation of Congressman Massa? In your citings, the comments made are not relevant to the thread you are discussing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeminNY (talk • contribs) 01:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Steve King
I just wanted you to know that a user added that original research back into the article. 63.215.29.202 (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Concerned Women for America and LGBT rights opposition
Hi, I see you removed the category listing from Concerned Women for America because this category "seems like a biased category". LGBT rights opposition is simply stating a fact, not in any way a pejorative. There is no category listing called "anti-gay marriage" and even if there were, CW of A not only opposes same-sex marriage, they oppose ANY recognition of same sex couples, marriage, civil unions or domestic partners, they oppose ending DADT (dont ask dont tell), they are oppose Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), they have accused same-sex partners of those killed in 9/11 of "trying to hijack the moral capital of marriage".

I appreciate your kind and rational understanding.--DCX (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you have again reverted my addition to this group in the LGBT Rights Opposition. Please discuss how we can resolve this to avoid frustration. To me it is evident that the Category name is not pejorative and is applicable to this group as the article supports. --DCX (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Explanations for reverts
Can I remind you that Rajendra K. Pachauri‎ is under probation? Reverts with no hint of explanation such as could easily be seen as edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of source and material
Hi, you removed sourced content and the source citation with this edit. Please do not remove reliable sourcing. Regards Hekerui (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Tom Corbett
The Tom Corbett article has a number of additions which you have quite properly removed, but there is the possibility of an edit war. Perhaps there is some way to avoid that. What do you think about the situation? --DThomsen8 (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation
You may want to check the sources before re-adding removed content, as you did here. Not only has the editor(Movieguruman) been going from article to article inserting almost exclusively Fox links, but also copy and pasting the material from those links word for word. Which is almost always a copyright violation. Perhaps if you want, you can find another source, and reword the entry. Of course the article isn't supposed to be used for a day by day additions of poll numbers, but there is an article for that. As well as other articles about health care. Thanks. DD2K (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Steve King
I was wondering if you could keep up that article. There is a lot of controversy written in it, but some of the paragraphs do not indicate a controversy. Yephedid (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Tarkanian press photo.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Tarkanian press photo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinion needed!
As a frequent editor of American politics, I would appreciate if you put your two cents into the debate over the conservative support for President Obama in Talk:Public image of Barack Obama. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Nitty
Charges are lauched to simply open the investigation, they are worthless, the issue is under investigation by the cid.. there are multiple unspecified investigations going on but there are not as yet any official charges brought against him and we know not what will actually end up at court. Please remember this is a BLP and take it easy with additions. Feel free to discuss with me what I think about adding this and that, I am freely available for discussion.Off2riorob (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you cite that he has actually been officially charged with? Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Arizona apartheid article
I like your idea, I just wish you had brought it up in the talk page first 76.180.115.242 (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I edited your edit on the Bobby Jindal page
It wasn't the I-team that ranked the Louisiana Governor's office that low. They just reported it. I reflected the edit as such. If you dispute that minor edit I made, let's discuss it on the Jindal talk page. DanielZimmerman (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jaggi Vasudev
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jaggi Vasudev. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Jaggi Vasudev. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement
Boromir123, thanks for your thoughtful contributions to this article. I would welcome your opinion on the request to remove the highly POV racism section until consensus can be reached. Thank you. Freedom Fan (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Blumenthal revert
Please explain your reverting my contribution to Blumenthal and how you came up with the POV suggestion. The words were carefully chosen and sourced. The term appropriately fits recent discoveries of Blumenthal's admissions and the presses discoveries. Your revert as it stands appears to be vandalism as the history will show.Victor9876 (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The obfuscation comment was out of place in the first sentence of the article. I have no problem with adding a sentence in the lead but lets keep it neutral! Perhaps something along the lines of "The NY times reported that Blumenthal was shown to have made several misleading or untrue comments about his military service" Boromir123 (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Obfuscation is exactly the same thing as the NYT's article is stating, without using the term liar. I even linked the term for others to look up, and provided three references, how is that "out of place"? And how neutral can anyone be about a liar? A liar is a liar! Period.Victor9876 (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you made some good changes but it just doesn't belong in the first sentence. By the way, I am no fan of Blumenthal! Boromir123 (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Grayson
I think I was wrong to revert the IP, when I looked again the comment is in the http://www.graysonforcongress.com/page.asp?PageId=2 primary cite. My fault and if the IP replaces it them it does look ok, or I may replace it with a comment to explain, just to let you know. sorry. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Pro-life movement
Hi. Please use the article talk page to explain your revert of material I added to the lead section in accordance with WP:LEAD. It is not acceptable to argue "I don't like it" as you did in the edit summary. I am open and willing to change and expand the lead further, so please share your ideas for improvement. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-partisan pollers?
"The conservative leaning Civitas Institute..."

Is it really a non-partisan poll? So far all I see is a poll comissioned by a conservative think-tank, a blog and a news source that merely asks the question. See the article TP.

Thanks. Harry the Dog WOOF  10:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * While it is a conservative leaning organization, it hired a non-partisan pollster, Survey USA to conduct the study. Boromir123 (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. — Jeff G. ツ 19:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand and thank you for the message. A question-for information that is not controversial, is Kirk's website not acceptable? I've seen myriads of political articles that cite the candidate's website for noncontroversial biographical material including educational background, career, etc.Boromir123 (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the candidate's website is definitely an acceptable source for reference. Per Selfpub standards. Unless there are reliable sources that dispute content from the article source(or one of the other conditions), it's a valid reference. Dave Dial (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks DD2K for the info. Boromir123 (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

re: McChrystal
This edit was so bad that it was basically fraudulent. I really would like to know what you were thinking there. EvanHarper (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the BBC source that I provided, "Gen McChrystal has not himself been quoted being critical of the president or his policies."Boromir123 (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You actually wrote "of the president or the administration's policy."
 * It's a cherry-picked exculpatory claim from an official "blog" attached to the BBC website, giving the opinion of an editor rather than actual news. It's technically true, but only in the sense that McChrystal is directly quoted mocking administration officials, and paraphrased criticizing administration policy and the President, but not directly quoted criticizing policy or the President. So it's quite misleading.
 * The second source you cited says almost exactly opposite of what you wrote: "In the article McChrystal himself says Obama was unprepared in their first meeting." (Which admittedly is slightly inaccurate -- McChrystal doesn't say that himself in the RS piece, he has his aides say that he said it. But there has been no question about this being his aides going "off-message" somehow.)
 * Fourth, you changed "McChrystal and his staff mock civilian government officials" to "McChrystal's staff mock civilian government officials," which was clearly wrong, as the article quotes McChrystal mocking Biden, Holbrooke, and Eikenberry. EvanHarper (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Official blogs that are under the editorial oversite of reliable news agencies are considered reliable citations. The final point I concede. McChrystal did indeed mock civilian government officials but I wanted to make it clear that he did not directly mock the President, his commander-in-chief. Thanks for your comments.Boromir123 (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except that you repeatedly take exactlythe opposite position on such sources, when only the politics are different. You even go to the point of removing information cited to mainstream wire service reports because they are reporting on controversies that you associate with blogs and bloggers. You're welcome. EvanHarper (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced material on Meg Whitman
You removed referenced material after I had cleaned up OR and copy edited to fit the claim being made by the reference itself. The added information is directly relevant to the Goldman Sachs subsection and is all contained in the citation. You left no edit summary and no talk page discussion. As the reverter it is upon you to explain why the revert was made. If the information is disputed, please begin the appropriate discussion on the talk page. If you have references please present them and allow consensus to determine the direction to take on the varifiability of sources. Reverting this again in the same manner will be seen as vandalism, reverted and reported to the appropriate notice board. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I hope we can come to some sort of consensus regarding the language. The first citation referenced Whitman's lawyer stating that she will sell all Goldman stocks and put the rest in a blind trust. I wanted that to be clarified. Sorry about the omission of an edit summary. My apologies.Boromir123 (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Robert J. Bentley
We should just request page protection. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick reply! Boromir123 (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to a discussion
TFOWR 18:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Nandi
please do not insert text that makes advertisement for real estate builders who destroy the beauty of nandi hills environment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranadr (talk • contribs) 08:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I have found no articles stating that development in the Nandi Hills area will be detrimental to the environment. All the information that was deleted by you was sourced and relevent regarding the development at Nandi Hills. Therefore, I readded the info. Boromir123 (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Does it require a reference article to understand that building resorts and golf courses will have an impact on delicate ecology of nandi hills forests? I am born and brought up in this place and i know how things are affecting the ecology. Further, use of real estate company name and what they are planning to build is is irrelevant in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiranadr (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Regarding Mike Arcuri, the user who initially introduced that info inserted the same stuff on several other pages and was reverted, primarily because the claim, while appropriately sourced, seemed like an NPOV violation that highlighted one of countless obscure votes that politicians like Arcuri make every day Congress is in session. The user in question was blocked for 31 hours for edit warring, likely over their behavior at Arcuri's page, and was asked to discuss those edits on talk pages rather than keep reinserting them. Şłџğģő 21:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I should have taken a look at the edit war previously in progress before undoing. Boromir123 (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Rick Perry
I admit what I wrote was too anti-Perry, but some reference needs to be made to the Government trying to obfuscate the details of the spending. Otherwise, the quote from the White campaign doesn't really make sense. Peace. Hasta luego (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

 * Welcome to the project. --Kumioko (talk) 04:41, 6 January 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. --Kumioko (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 edition
Starting with the February 2011 issue WikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also: You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Portal:United States
 * 2) the United States Wikipedians Noticeboard
 * 3) the United States Wikipedians collaboration of the Month - The collaboration article for February is Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
 * 4) and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.

April 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth
As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know I have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
.--Kumioko (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: September 2011
  September 2011

FROM THE EDITOR

An Historic Milestone

 By Lionelt Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.

The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as 'no ownership of articles', and particularly 'no original research', will not necessarily apply."

WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"

PROJECT NEWS

New Style Guide Unveiled

 By Lionelt A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration here.

I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove.

-

ARTICLE REPORT

3,000th Article Tagged

 By Lionelt On August 3rd Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry were Michele Bachmann and Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.

The Right Stuff: October 2011
 <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:100%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; text-align:center;"> October 2011

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; ">INTERVIEW

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">An Interview with Dank

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> By Lionelt

The Right Stuff caught up with Dank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia.

Q: Tell us a little about yourself. A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintained WP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008.

Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects? A: I guess I'm most familiar with WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed at WP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another.

Q: What makes a WikiProject successful? A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership? A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push.

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes. - <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> DISCUSSION REPORT

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Abortion Case Plods Along

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;">

By Lionelt The arbitration request submitted by Steven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of the Pro-life and Pro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede of Abortion. A number of members are involved. On the Evidence page ArtifexMahem posted a table indicating that DMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on theWorkshop page. Last month it was decided that due to the success of the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard the Content Noticeboard would be shut down. Wikiquette Assistance will remain active. The DRN is primarily intended to resolve content disputes.

- <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; ">PROJECT NEWS

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Article Incubator Launched

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> By Lionelt Was your article deleted in spite of your best efforts to save it? You should consider having a copy restored to the Incubator where project members can help improve it. Upon meeting content criteria, articles are graduated to mainspace. The Incubator is also ideal for collaborating on new article drafts. Star Parker is the first addition to the incubator. The article was deleted per WP:POLITICIAN. WikiProject Conservatism is expanding. We now have a satellite on Commons. Any help in categorizing images or in getting the fledgling project off the ground is appreciated. We have a few new members who joined the project in September. Please give a hearty welcome to Conservative Philosopher, Screwball23 and Regushee by showing them some Wikilove. Screwball23 has been on WikiPedia for five years and has made major improvements to Linda McMahon. Regushee is not one for idle chit chat: an amazing 93% of their edits are in article space.

The Right Stuff: November 2011
<div style="font-family:Wedding Text, Linotext, Old English Text MT, serif; font-size:58px; line-height:69px; padding-bottom:7px;"> <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:100%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; text-align:center;">

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; ">PROJECT NEWS

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">WikiProject Conservatism faces the ultimate test

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> By Lionelt On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion by member Binksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed by Guerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up by The Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind". The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at the Discuss This Story section, and also at the.

Two days after the project was nominated, the Conservatism Portal was also nominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal. In other news, a new portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content is Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike. Mwhite148 is a member of the UK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative, Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring of Wikilove.

Click to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism. - <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> DISCUSSION REPORT

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Timeline of conservatism is moved

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> By Lionelt Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, was nominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title is Timeline of modern American conservatism.

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Indian Institute of Technology Muddenahalli for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Indian Institute of Technology Muddenahalli is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Indian Institute of Technology Muddenahalli until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Muhandes (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: January 2012
<div style="font-family:Wedding Text, Linotext, Old English Text MT, serif; font-size:58px; line-height:69px; padding-bottom:7px;"> <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:100%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; text-align:center;"> January 2012

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; ">ARTICLE REPORT <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Wikipedia's Newest Featured Portal: Conservatism

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> By Lionelt On January 21, The Conservatism Portal was promoted to Featured Portal (FP) due largely to the contributions of Lionelt. This is the first Featured content produced by WikiProject Conservatism. The road to Featured class was rocky. An earlier nomination for FP failed, and in October the portal was "Kept" after being nominated for deletion.

Member Eisfbnore significantly contributed to the successful Good Article nomination of Norwegian journalist and newspaper editor Nils Vogt in December. Eisfbnore also created the article. In January another Project article was promoted to Featured Article. Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a president of Brazil, attained Featured class with significant effort by Lecen. The Article Incubator saw its first graduation in November. A collaboration spearheaded by Mzk1 and Trackerseal successfully developed Star Parker to pass the notability guideline. -

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; ">PROJECT NEWS

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Project Scope Debated

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> By Lionelt Another discussion addressing the project scope began in December. Nine alternatives were presented in the contentious, sometimes heated discussion. Support was divided between keeping the exitsing scope, or adopting a scope with more specificity. Some opponents of the specific scope were concerned that it was too limiting and would adversely affect project size. About twenty editors participated in the discussion.

Inclusion of the article Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was debated. Supporters for inclusion cited sources describing the KKK as "conservative." The article was excluded with more than 10 editors participating.

Project membership continues to grow. There are currently 73 members. Member Goldblooded (pictured) volunteers for the UK Conservative Party and JohnChrysostom is a Christian Democrat. North8000 is interested in libertarianism. We won't tell WikiProject Libertarianism he's slumming. Let's stop by their talkpages and share some Wikilove.

Click to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; ">DISCUSSION REPORT

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Why is Everyone Talking About Rick Santorum?

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> By Lionelt

Articles about the GOP presidential candidate and staunch traditional marriage supporter have seen an explosion of discussion. On January 8 an RFC was opened (here) to determine if Dan Savage's website link should be included in Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The next day the Rick Santorum article itself was the subject of an RFC (here) to determine if including the Savage neologism was a violation of the BLP policy. Soon after a third was opened (here) at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. This RFC proposes merging the neologism article into the controversy article.

The Abortion case closed in November after 15 weeks of contentious arbitration. The remedies include semi-protection of all abortion articles (numbering 1,500), sanctions for some editors including members of this Project, and a provision for a discussion to determine the names of what are colloquially known as the pro-life and pro-choice articles. The Committee endorsed the "1 revert rule" for abortion articles.

<div style="clear:both; width:100%; border-bottom:3px double #999; border-top:3px double #bbb; padding:3px;">

WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2012 Contest
Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.

As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.

If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide. Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.

You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.

& (Drive coordinators)

Delivered per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bot_requests&oldid=481419438#Message_to_take_part_in_Assessment_Drive request] on Bot requests. 01:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC) The  Helpful  Bot  01:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Documents at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum
hi

I work at the Gerald Ford Presidential Library and Museum, and we are uploading materials to Wikimedia Commons. We have a number of documents that might be of interest to you - they are located at Wikimedia, Category:Documents at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum.

If you are interested in writing articles/stubs, I may be able to provide you with pictures from our archives as well. We have a limited number of artifacts, to also at Wikimedia, Category:Artifacts at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum.

Let me know if I can help in any way, and please feel free to pass the word about these docs; I'd love to see some content generated around them....thanks! Bdcousineau (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao
Why are you adding unsourced info to a BLP? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Just forgot to cite the news articles!Boromir123 (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk page
There is a discussion going on in the talk page. There is temporary consesnsus, please do not add till official announcement.--Vin09 (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
please sign your posts Vin09 (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge and WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Re-initiating INCOTM
It's been almost an year since "Indian collaboration of the month" was active. Firstly we need to restart this as soon as possible for development of India-related articles to greater heights. The members page was blanked, where many of them are inactive. This mass message is to all the members of WikiProject India, about this and interested editors interested will sign up. After this message gets delivered, we'll wait for 7 days before we start a discussion under a thread on the collaboration's talk page, among the members. The discussion will include what to clean-up of sub-pages, a new set of guidelines for smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the collaboration etc. Please keep all the discussions under this thread only, so that it will easier for future reference. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-initiating INCOTM
It's been almost an year since "Indian collaboration of the month" was active. Firstly we need to restart this as soon as possible for development of India-related articles to greater heights. The members page was blanked, where many of them are inactive. This mass message is to all the members of WikiProject India, about this and interested editors interested will sign up. After this message gets delivered, we'll wait for 7 days before we start a discussion under a thread on the collaboration's talk page, among the members. The discussion will include what to clean-up of sub-pages, a new set of guidelines for smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the collaboration etc. Please keep all the discussions under this thread only, so that it will easier for future reference. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Indian military history
You are invited to join the Indian military history work-group, an initiative of the Military history WikiProject. This group is to exclusively deal with the topics related to Indian military. If you're interested, please add you name to the participants list. Ignore if you are already a member. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Indian defence services
You are requested to participate in the discussion of Wiki Loves Indian defence services on the talk page of WikiProject India. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Wikigraphists Bootcamp (2018 India)
Greetings,

It is being planned to organize Wikigraphists Bootcamp in India, please fill out the survey form to help the organizers. Your responses will help organizers understand what level of demand there is for the event (how many people in your community think it is important that the event happens). At the end of the day, the participants will turn out to have knowledge to create drawings, illustrations, diagrams, maps, graphs, bar charts etc. and get to know to how to tune the images to meet the QI and FP criteria. For more information and link to survey form, please visit Talk:Wikigraphists Bootcamp (2018 India). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Supporting Indian Wikipedia Program resource distribution
In 2017 - 2018, the Wikimedia Foundation and Google working in close coordination with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Wikimedia India chapter (WMIN) and user groups will pilot a program encouraging Wikipedia communities to create locally relevant and high-quality content in Indian languages. This program (Code name: Project Tiger) will:
 * (a) Support active and experienced Wikipedia editors through the donation of laptops and stipends for internet access and
 * (b) Sponsor a language-based contest that aims to address existing Wikipedia content gaps.

The objective of the program is to provide laptops and internet stipends for existing editors who need support to contribute more actively. 50 basic model Acer Chromebooks and Internet stipends for 100 contributors are available for distribution. Provided resources are the sole property of the beneficiaries and should be used for the betterment of the movement.

If you're an active Wikimedian, and interested to receive support from this project, please apply. It will take around 10 minutes of your time, and will ask descriptive questions about your contribution to Indic Wikimedia projects.


 * Apply at: Supporting Indian Language Wikipedias Program#Apply for support
 * Last date for submitting applications is 11th February 2018, 11:59 IST.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Project Tiger Writing Contest
In 2017 – 2018, the Wikimedia Foundation and Google working in close coordination with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Wikimedia India Chapter (WMIN) and user groups from India, are piloting a program encouraging Wikipedia communities to create locally relevant and high-quality content in Indian languages. This program will (a) support active and experienced Wikipedia editors through the donation of laptops and stipends for internet access and (b) sponsor a language-based contest that aims to address existing Wikipedia content gaps.

Phase (a) has been completed, during which active contributors were awarded laptops and internet stipends. Phase (b) will be a contest in which editors will come together and develop a writing contest focused on content gaps. Each month three individual prizes will be awarded to each community based on their contribution for the month. The prizes worth 3,000 INR, 2000 INR, and 1,000 INR, will be awarded to the top contributors for each month. The contest started at March 1, 2018, 0:00, and will end at May 31, 2018, 23:59 (IST). Useful links are as follows:


 * Sign up at: Project Tiger Writing Contest/Participants
 * List of the articles can be referred at: Project Tiger Writing Contest/Topics
 * Submit/report your articles/contributions at: https://tools.wmflabs.org/fountain/editathons/project-tiger-2018-en
 * For more details, rules, FAQ etc. kindly refer: Project Tiger Writing Contest

Looking forward your participation, all the best. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) at 22:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC).

The Right Stuff June 2018
<div style="font-family:Wedding Text, Linotext, Old English Text MT, serif; font-size:58px; line-height:69px; padding-bottom:6px;"> <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:100%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; text-align:center;"> June 2018

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> FROM THE EDITOR

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:170%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">The Right Stuff Returns

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 90%;"> By

Fellow members, I'm pleased to announce the return of the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. And considering the recent downsizing at The Signpost the timing could not be better. The Right Stuff will help keep you apprised of what's happening in conservatism at Wikipedia and in the world. The Right Stuff welcomes submissions including position pieces, instructional articles, or short essays addressing important conservatism-related issues. Post submissions here.

Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the latest updates at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story) - <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> ARBITRATION REPORT

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:170%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Russian Agents Editing at American Politics?

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 90%;"> By

After a series of unfortunate events largely self-created, bureaucrat and admin was the subject of an Arbitration case for conduct unbecoming. Prior to the case getting underway Andrevan resigned as bureaucrat and admin. A widely discussed incident was when he suggested that some editors he described as "pro-Trump" were paid Russian agents. This resulted in a number of editors from varied quarters denouncing the allegations and voicing support for veteran editors including and the notorious.

Editors who faced Enforcement action include (no action),  (three month topic ban ARBAPDS),  (no action) and  (indef topic ban ARBAPDS). (Discuss this story)

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> IN THE MEDIA

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:170%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Breitbart Versus Wikipedia

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 90%;"> By

Breitbart News, in response to Facebook's decision to use Wikipedia as a source to fight fake news, has declared war on our beloved pedia. The article in Haaretz describes the Facebook arrangement as Wikipedia's "greatest test in years" as well as a "massive threat" to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Breitbart's targeting of Wikipedia has resulted in an "epic battle" with respect to editing at the Breitbart article. The article has also recently experienced a dramatic increase in traffic with 50,000 visitors according to Haaretz. There is no love lost between Breitbart and Wikipedia where editors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard have criticized the news websites unreliability and have compared it to The Daily Mail. (Discuss this story) - <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> DISCUSSION REPORT

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:170%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Liberty and Trump and Avi, Oh my!

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 90%;"> By

There are several open discussions at the Project:

Recently closed discussions include Anti-abortion movements which was not renamed, and an RFC at Trump–Russia dossier. (Discuss this story)
 * There is an RFC regarding Liberty University and its relationship to President Trump; see discussion
 * Activist and commentator Avi Yemini is listed at AFD; see discussion

Delivered: 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: July 2018
<div style="font-family:Wedding Text, Linotext, Old English Text MT, serif; font-size:58px; line-height:69px; padding-bottom:6px;"> <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:100%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; text-align:center;"> July 2018

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> DISCUSSION REPORT

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:170%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">WikiProject Conservatism Comes Under Fire

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 90%;"> By

WikiProject Conservatism was a topic of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (AN/I). Objective3000 started a thread where he expressed concern regarding the number of RFC notices posted on the Discussion page suggesting that such notices "could result in swaying consensus by selective notification." Several editors participated in the relatively abbreviated six hour discussion. The assertion that the project is a "club for conservatives" was countered by editors listing examples of users who "profess no political persuasion." It was also noted that notification of WikiProjects regarding ongoing discussions is explicitly permitted by the WP:Canvassing guideline.

At one point the discussion segued to feedback about The Right Stuff. Member SPECIFICO wrote: "One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages." Atsme praised the newsletter as "first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing." Some good-natured sarcasm was offered with Objective3000 observing, "Well, they got the color right" and MrX's followup, "Wow. Yellow is the new red."

Admin Oshwah closed the thread with the result "definitely not an issue for ANI" and directing editors to the project Discussion page for any further discussion. Editor's note: originally the design and color of The Right Stuff was chosen to mimic an old, paper newspaper.

Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the "latest RFCs" at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story) - <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> ARTICLES REPORT

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:170%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Margaret Thatcher Makes History Again

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 90%;"> By

Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations to. A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featued article). WikiProject Conservatism is one of only two WikiProjects offering A-Class review, the other being WikiProject Military History. Nominate your article here. (Discuss this story)

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> RECENT RESEARCH

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:170%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Research About AN/I

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 90%;"> By

Reprinted in part from the April 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written by 

Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), according to a recent survey. The survey also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a "boomerang effect" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. The survey also included an analysis of available quantitative data about AN/I. Some notable takeaways:


 * 53% avoided making a report due to fearing it would not be handled appropriately
 * "Otherwise 'popular' users often avoid heavy sanctions for issues that would get new editors banned."
 * "Discussions need to be clerked to keep them from raising more problems than they solve."

In the wake of Zarasophos' article editors discussed the AN/I survey at The Signpost and also at AN/I. Ironically a portion of the AN/I thread was hatted due to "off-topic sniping." To follow-up the problems identified by the research project the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team initiated a discussion. You can express your thoughts and ideas here. (Discuss this story)

Delivered: 09:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject India
<div style="background-image: -moz-linear-gradient(left, #ED7A32, white, white, green); background-image: -ms-linear-gradient(left, #ED7A32, white, white, green); background-image: -o-linear-gradient(left, #ED7A32, white, white, green); background-image: -webkit-linear-gradient(left, #ED7A32, white, white, green); background-image: linear-gradient(left, #ED7A32, white, white, green);> WikiProject India

'Namaste'', Boromir123. We would like to inform you about the recent changes to the WikiProject. As you may know, the old newsletter for WikiProject India ceased circulation in 2010. Now we have re-launched the newsletter in a new way. As a member, you are cordially invited to subscribe to the newsletter. Thank you.''' <div style="; width: 400px; text-align: center; margin-right: 1em; border: 1px solid /777777;padding:0.5em 1.0em; background:#F5D020;background-image: radial-gradient(#FFDD00,#FBB034)"> Subscribe

Newsletter discussion

Contribute

Subscribe/Unsubscribe

Archive

Sent by on behalf of WikiProject India. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

You have been pruned from the WikiProject India/Members list.
Hi Boromir123! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at WikiProject India/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 1 year.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting WikiProject India/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)