User talk:Champaign Supernova

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fighting Illini + Illinois history & politics.

You were involved in a request for amendment American politics (Kentucky Senate election)[edit]

That request has been archived here.

The arbitration committee has chosen to close this request, noting that per WP:NEWBLPBAN, this article is subject to DS. For the arbitration committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you![edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thank you for updating and expanding Wikipedia's coverage of Members of Congress! Juno (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tim Bishop may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:
  • of Congressional Ethics issued a 177-page report on the situation in September 2013.<ref name=oce>[http://oce.house.gov/2013/09/september-11-2013---oce-referral-regarding-rep-tim-bishop.html Office

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tim Bishop may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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:
  • performed an investigation, the results of which were summarized in 177-page report.<ref name=oce>[http://oce.house.gov/2013/09/september-11-2013---oce-referral-regarding-rep-tim-bishop.html Office

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop removing the fact that Gary Peters is a member of the Sons of the American Revolution from his page. I know you conservatives like to change facts and history to suit your agenda but stop it.MichiganderOne (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. The information you're seeking to add to the article needs a reliable source to verify it. Right now, there's no source at all. That's why I'm removing it. Please find a source confirming the information before you try re-inserting it into the article. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Tim Bishop vandalism[edit]

After attempting to discuss the issues in dispute on Tim Bishop and inviting BlueboyLI to explain his case (with no response other than repeated reversions to the page), I think it's time to discuss the next steps in dealing with the conflict. I've never been involved in a dispute such as this before, and you and CFredkin both seem more knowledgeable about it than I am. How can we proceed going forward? Is it possible to request some sort of ban (or at least edit protection) on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABarnes94 (talkcontribs) 04:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Carl DeMaio article[edit]

At the urging or taunting (given what I've seen of his or her history) BY CFredkin, I did go to the Noticeboard, had a lot of problems with it (turned out I had named the page Carl De Maio instead of Carl_DeMaio) made worse by problems with my laptop which is extremely quirky (Recommendation: Don't buy HP or Dell), and I'm not sure if I've done all this right. On the interactive form, I listed your USER name as being involved, along with CFredkin and MelanieN. I don't know if that generates a notice to you or not. When I returned to the DeMaio TALK page I had pretty much run out of time and was called away by family business, but I noted in my edits that I'd notified all three of you. I didn't know if I needed to do so here as well, but figured I should get around to it as time permitted. I actually, a couple of weeks ago, looked at the many edits you had made to pages that he or she had edited, but it was quite obvious when I looked at your contributions that you're helpfully editing a wide variety of pages on many subjects, not just political ones. I don't always agree with your edits, but they haven't risen anywhere near that level of disputation. CFredkin, on the other hand, edits exclusively to political pages, and almost entirely to candidate pages involving high profile federal races in play. As I noted in my confrontation with him or her over the "theraputic chicken" edits on the Braley page, a thoroughly inconsequential "he said, she said" issue, that his or her agenda doesn't pass the "duck test" as a "good faith" editor. There's something very sinister going on there, which I would not welcome even if it were coming from an editor who invariably agreed with me. His or her arguments for inclusion or deletion of edits often seem quite internally incompatible. He or she regularly takes positions directly apposite to ones he or she takes in other articles. (I noted that he or she claimed comedy show edits attacking those he or she supported, coming from Jimmy Kimmel, were notable, while almost identical-in-tone edits originating with remarks by Bill Maher and Jon Stewart were supposedly not notable, if they lampooned those candidates he or she supported.} Those were hardly the only contradictory positions he or she had taken. I noticed in the last few days that he or she's set down a dictim, and I can't remember exactly what it was, that contended, according to CFredkin's interpretation, "you can't do that," while doing exactly the same thing him or herself. (I'll send it if I remember what it was.) I doubt if he or she's suffering from cognitive dissonance. This seems a very intentional and tendentious line of argument that this editor uses. Activist (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC) ,

Campaign contributions[edit]

Should we add to Mitch McConnell article that he attended an meeting with conservative millionaire and billionaire donors hosted by the Koch brothers? [1]. What do you think? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems notable to me. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Great, Would you do the honors? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to add your suggested content for you. You found the information and the source, so you can add it if you want to. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Udall[edit]

I don't appreciate you keep shitting on my edits while I'm editing Mark Udall's page. It's not even at C quality so if there is any fluff or whatnot, it can go a few edits before it gets weeded out. If you feel strongly enough about something please take it up on the talk page; or rather just have patience. Pitting out edits against each other certainly won't make the article any better. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 06:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for all the excellent cleanup work you've been doing on articles on my watchlist! You rock! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! What with the polar vortex and all, there's really nothing better to do all day than edit Wikipedia :) Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ballotpedia[edit]

I noticed your recent edits to Ballotpedia, adding content right after an IP removed content. While I recognize you're not an SPA, I'm curious to know if you're being paid by the Lucy Burns Institute or any other entity. You haven't announced such as the terms of use require but I find it odd. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? It's on my watchlist. I checked Wikipedia tonight and saw an IP had made what I thought to be large-scale, unsubstantiated removal of sourced content, so I reverted it and asked the IP to initiate a discussion. And you're accusing me of paid editing? Wow. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
No accusation. Just curious. Thanks for the reply. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a big problem with editor retention. Being randomly asked if I'm a paid editor for no apparent reason isn't helping. I'm just not sure how reverting deletions by an IP then adding sourced content to an article is a "red flag." If you have a legitimate issue with my editing, by all means, let me know. But the fact that I edited an article tonight and added content seems pretty boring, frankly. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Chris, you've been at this long enough to know that making unsubstantiated COI accusations is provocative and fundamentally at odds with AGF. Please do your due diligence next time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you all take this to the Ballotpedia Talk page. The ignorance here, of both the organization and Wikipedia Guidelines, is appalling. That includes claiming a question is an accusation. All this snarkiness is quite off-putting for actual researchers. 71.23.178.214 (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Art Institute of Fort Lauderdale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Art Institute (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)