Champaign Supernova

Fighting Illini + Illinois history & politics.

Comment on David Jolly edits

Hi, I'm a reporter with BuzzFeed News. After noticing David Jolly's Senate campaign edited his Wikipedia page (something they've admitted to) they accused you of working for a rival campaign to make unflattering edits.

Could you email me at Andrew@buzzfeed.com with a response on this?

Thanks,

Andrew Kaczynski, reporter BuzzFeed News

Huh. Well this is bizarre. It appears I got caught in the crossfire of some COI editing by Jolly's staff. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's the article, the David Jolly campaign specifically accused you of working for the campaign of a rival? Any comment on that? Are you just a regular editor. http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/florida-senate-campaign-admits-to-scrubbing-candidates-wikip

Oy vey. It's an absurd allegation. I made my first edit to the David Jolly page on February 29, 2016. I made some minor copy-edits, added sources for information already in the article, and added a section on his 2016 re-election bid. I didn't remove any information or add any "propaganda" (whatever that means). The Scientology stuff and the other information his campaign attempted to scrub has been in the article for months and in some cases for years. None of it was added by me, or by the other user, CFredkin, who the campaign has accused. It looks to me like a political campaign got caught red-handed trying to scrub a page, and they are now engaging in some sort of conspiracy theory to try to take attention off of their blunder. I'm not interested in engaging with it, and this is the last I'll say on the matter. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate the quick responses here. Have a good day. AK

You've Been Awarded The BuzzFeed Famous Barnstar

	BuzzFeed Famous
	Because sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. Onward and upward, eh? Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Religion in infoboxes

I've reverted your addition of religion to the infobox of Brad Ashford. This is partly because of the principles expressed at MOS:INFOBOX: the purpose of an infobox is to summarize key facts from the article, and the less material it contains, the better. Ashford's religion was not even mentioned in the article, and nothing that I've read indicates that it's been a major issue (the way that, for instance, John F. Kennedy's Catholicism or Mitt Romney's Mormonism were major issues). Moreover, an RFC on the issue of religion in infoboxes (Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_126#RfC:_Religion_in_biographical_infoboxes) produced a fairly strong consensus in favor of leaving religion out, even if it was possible to determine it from reliable sources, except in cases where it had attracted significant media attention. — Ammodramus (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. I hadn't seen that recent RFC. Thanks for the explanation. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jack Martins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney. 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) 09:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Comstock Voting Record

Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia editing and I did not know about the Talk page. Happy to explain my reasoning here.

I reinstated the information about Conservative Review's grade of Comstock's voting record. There is no judgmental language in the statement posted, simply a factual accounting of how one conservative organization views this Republican congresswoman's voting record. It is very appropriate information for her page.

Thanks,

OakTreeByWindow (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)OakTreeByWindow

OakTreeByWindow, please participate on the talk page of Barbara Comstock where I started a discussion several weeks ago. My concern is that Conservative Review's grade isn't notable absent a secondary source confirming its notability. Members of Congress are routinely given "grades" by hundreds of interest groups. We can't include them all, so we should only include grades that were deemed noteworthy enough to cover by secondary sources. Please gain consensus at article talk rather than edit-warring. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to find the "talk page of Barbara Comstock" so I'll have to respond here. First, it seems the "edit warring" you mentioned was a two-way street. Secondly, your initial reason for deleting the information I provided on Comstock's voting record was that Conservative Review didn't meet the Reliable Sources standard. Now, you are asking for another source confirming it's notability. The target seems to be moving. The information provided is accurate, sourced and part of Comstock's record. Comstock's page includes endorsements she received from various organization without any secondary sourcing to indicate their notability. I think the information I posted is on solid footing.

OakTreeByWindow (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)OakTreeByWindow

OakTreeByWindow, the place to have this discussion is Talk:Barbara Comstock. Please participate there, thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the State Fair of Texas page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hilary Rosen

Hello Champaign Supernova, once upon a great while ago, you helped me out with the updating of a BLP where I had a financial COI. I'm here about a similar case today, Hilary Rosen. About three weeks ago I posted a request on her discussion page, offering an updated "Career" section with a concise-as-possible explanation why. Alas, I haven't had any response whatsoever, even after trying various wikiprojects and reaching out to some editors who had been previously active on the page. Would you be willing to take a look at the proposed update? Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Good, news, the request above has since been resolved. I posted another one last week, though responses are still very slow on this page, with no replies yet. If you're willing to have a look and consider the new one, that would be great. If not, I won't bug you a third time. :) WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

WWB Too, sorry I forgot to respond to your first posting here. I just took a look at the Rosen article and implemented your suggested changes, as they looked like an overall improvement to me. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I'm sure you're busy. And as I've pinged you on the Rosen Talk page, my turn to apologize: I didn't realize the reference would be undefined, because it's defined in the next section I had to propose. Over there I've offered two solutions: one, the correct reference to put into place. Two, reverting the bot and adding one or both of the next sections. Whichever the case, I greatly appreciate your help. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry to have to ask again about the Hilary Rosen entry, but I am down to the last couple of requests, and it's been very difficult to get a response on the current one, even after seeking help from WikiProjects and several active editors. So I am here again to see if you'll review proposed text related to her LGBT advocacy work, plus a short "Personal life" section. If you are willing to help again, you can see the request and an explanation of the suggested changes here. Let me know what you think, and cheers! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@WWB Too: I responded to your request on the talk page of Hilary Rosen. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Tom Reed

Hello, Champaign Supernova. I disagree that the phrase "Despite wide-spread criticism within his district" should be removed from the section on Reed's continued endorsement of Donald Trump. It is the lede in a news story, not an editorial, in a daily paper from his district and in fact is its headline. The fact that Reed continued to endorse Trump in August is only significant in light of the opposition from his own constituents; otherwise there would be no reason to mention it. The contested phrase does not violate NPOV ("...the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." According to legitimate news reports, constituents oppose Reed's endorsement of Trump for reasons specified in the referenced news story. Reed, in turn, says he will continue to endorse Trump for reasons specified in the referenced August story. These two references give readers the opportunity to see why some constituents oppose the endorsement and why Reed maintains it. I do not inted to ghet into a fight over this, but I respectfully think you should revert the change. Joalkap (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments--if you want to continue this discussion, please move it to Talk:Tom Reed (politician), thanks. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Burr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deborah Ross. 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) 09:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Your deletions in Jason Lewis article

Do you have a reply to this? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request on Morgan Carroll

Hi Champaign Supernova, I wanted to again thank you for informing this newbie in regards to Wikipedia policy. I have now uploaded suggested edits to Morgan Carroll via the request edit protocol. However, requested edits have a backlog of over a year, and as access to a more in depth Wikipedia profile is time sensitive and could prove instrumental in equal access to information regarding candidates (compare current Morgan Carroll v. Mike Coffman), I humbly ask if you could look through Talk:Morgan Carroll and add any information you deem to be neutral edits, particularly from the section on Colorado State Legislature.

Thanks, Slichtin (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Slichtin

@Slichtin: I have seen your edit requests and I'm beginning to go through them and respond. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I have posted some follow ups on Talk:Morgan Carroll, most importantly responding to your requests for additional secondary sources. Slichtin (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Joe Heck

Hey there, not nice to delete hours of well-referenced material. The Buzzfeed material, e.g. , was cited (as noted) by the Washington Post and many others. They broke the story. The Daily Kos is a sidenote too. 95% of what has been added comes from impartial records of voting in the House of Representatives. E.g. VoteSmart, which takes no positions one way or the other.--Smilo Don (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I will respond on the article talk page. Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please come have a look: working hard to incorporate your changes, with tone changes and with more citations from newsmedia. --Smilo Don (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal complaint of users responding to your Rob Portman deletions during 2016 US senate election

Please use this section to discuss your personal complaints with users such as myself or Camairaen regarding your deletions of material from the Rob Portman page. Thank you.

According to Wikipedia policies, you engaged in edit-warring. After the information which you deleted was restored, you were asked to open sections on the talk page. You again made the same deletions. Following my restoration, and then the same deletions from both you and BringthePaine, Camairaen observed the degree to which you edit-warred resembled Internet trolling. I acknowledged the comment, believing you both to be making mass-edits on behalf of a politically partisan entity such as a party or committee. My comment "Looks like a duck, acts like a duck..." was not a personal attack, but used to illustrate Camairaen's observation of your actions by connecting the entry on Internet trolling.--Republicsisterhood (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Calling another user a "troll" is a clear and obvious violation of WP:NPA. Moreover, the edit histories of you, Camairaen, and OhioTruths are suspicious and seem to point to sock or meat puppetry. For example, I find it highly implausible that OhioTruths would be inactive for 3.5 years and then a mere two hours after you canvased him, he would suddenly become active on Wikipedia again. Huh. I'm not too worried about it, though, since your plan to protect the page seems to have backfired on you. Whoops! Champaign Supernova (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You repeatedly made deletions of objective material. With your lack of activity on the page and one look at your contributions, it's apparent the deletions were made without objective motivations. That is why the page was protected, and will continue to be protected if you do it again.--Camairaen (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for having the page protected, by the way. You locked in my preferred version of the page. Good one. :-D Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it was done by your own hand. Your last deletion of objective material was made after the protection was requested but before the request was fulfilled.--Camairaen (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess that'll teach you to use page protection as a filibuster mechanism rather than discussing content issues on the talk page. Lulz. Champaign Supernova (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The page "What is a troll?" will help inform this situation.--Terrace Rock (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice / Warning

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Tag on Joe Heck

A tag was recently added to the bio on Joe Heck, but no evidence or support for the tag was provided. This article indicates that such tags can be removed. I'd like your opinion on the matter since you've edited the article and have more experience here than I have. Thank you.BringthePaine (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, just seeing this. I'm not seeing any tagging on Joe Heck, so the issue appears to have been resolved. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona, 2016 page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Champaign Supernova. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Katie^talk 00:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)