User talk:Champaign Supernova/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Champaign Supernova, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bilby (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hello! Champaign Supernova, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Bilby (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Message sent with Global message delivery.

Talkback

Hello, Champaign Supernova. You have new messages at Czarkoff's talk page.
Message added 18:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deletion discussion about Tim Dunn

Hello, Champaign Supernova,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Tim Dunn should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Dunn .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Itsalleasy (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Tim Dunn (businessman) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tim Dunn (businessman) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Dunn (businessman) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Gollin

Helllo. Ballotpedia is not an acceptable reference. See WP:ELNO. It is a wiki. Please revert. – S. Rich (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Funny that those editing on a wiki should be so critical of other wikis. The guideline reads, "Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." It looks like Ballotpedia has been around since 2007, and has 460,637 articles and 8,291 registered users. [1] The article I linked to on George Gollin has useful information that's nowhere to be found on his Wikipedia entry--information like campaign donors, which is sourced to the FEC. This information adds to Wikipedia's article on Gollin. I don't see how having one external link to a well-sourced article does anything but advance the aims of the encyclopedia. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

No. The difference is Wikipedia seeks to rely on reliable sources. It will not rely upon itself, or other wiki's. (And I would hope that Ballotpedia would not rely on WP as a source.) Using Ballotpedia as a reference is not acceptable. (It is problematic in the EL section, but I won't remove it from those sections when I see it.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC) PS: lots of articles and lots of users does not make it reliable. 04:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Rodney L. Davis, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Ballotpedia was discussed by the Wikipedia community here: [2]. The consensus is that it is not an acceptable reference. – S. Rich (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"Add or change content without identifying a reliable source?" In the edit you link to, I was *adding* a source. The discussion you link to with a handful of editors does not appear to have achieved any type of meaningful consensus, and it doesn't appear to be binding. It's a discussion without an officially sanctioned outcome. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia with facts that are useful to readers. There is no official rule saying we cannot use Ballotpedia as a source. When doing so improves an article, I will continue to do so. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Please, you are quibbling. As explained above and on my talk page, Ballotpedia is not an acceptable, reliable, source. Adding the problematic Ballotpedia, as a reference, is not improving the encyclopedia. – S. Rich (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC) PS: the editors in the Ballotpedia RSN discussion have been around for quite sometime. Their total edit count is over 200,000 and two of them (Dougweller & David Eppstein) are Wikipedia administrators. These are important factors when evaluating the "consensus" that we see in the discussion. Simply saying "this material improves Wikipedia" does not make it so when the material does not comply with editing policy and guidelines. 05:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

		A beer on me!
		I didn't drink that much on St. Pat's day, so there is beer to spare. Here's one for you in recognition of your very good election news edits. The beer includes a thank you for not seeking to add Ballotpedia as a reference in them. Happy editing. – S. Rich (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

George Gollin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to David Green

Illinois's 13th congressional district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to David Green

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Lee Zeldin

I have not re-added any disputed material. I'm only reverting information that you've deleted ie bill numbers that Zeldin either sponsored or voted on. Simply saying "Lee Zeldin voted on a bill ... " is not enough. By referencing the bills it enables the reader to get more information on a specific bill. BlueboyLI (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted the saltwater fishing because there is no good reference. The vote was in 2011, this link you provided as source is from 2014 & is about Demos ads. It has nothing to do with the referenced bill. BlueboyLI (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I've also deleted the PTSD reference because your source is biased and reads like a campaign ad. BlueboyLI (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The 2014 "controversy" has been deleted because it is poorly sourced (opinion column) & biased. The column also refers to Zeldin as a War Hero. He Is not. BlueboyLI (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BlueboyLI. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! BlueboyLI (talk) 08:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I responded on the article's talk page, but I'll also post my reply here:

The reason why I undid this [3] edit is because it attempts to quote from the inflammatory email that caused the brouhaha. Why would we quote directly from an email that has since been renounced? I say "attempts to quote," because there isn't a closing quotation mark, so it's impossible to see whether this is in fact a direct quote, and if so, where it ends. This leads to the appearance of bias. In addition, "The" is incorrectly capitalized prior to "Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee." I am also confused why the various recent sources I've added, all using the Wikipedia citation tool, have been reverted to bare URLs [4]. Numerous grammatical irregularities have also been introduced to the article, including irregular and incorrect capitalization (for example, this sentence: "In March 2011 He Secured Repeal of the Saltwater Fishing License Fee.") What was there prior [5] was grammatically correct, so it's making the article worse to revert to prior versions.Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC

There is an RFC ongoing on an article you recently edited. See Talk:Cory Gardner#RfC: Is it relevant to include Gardner's track record on specific issues? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC

An RFC on an article you recently edited is being conducted at Talk:Joni_Ernst#RfC: Can material that is critical to the subject be included in the article? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Discretionary Sanctions

Discretionary Sanctions for Mitch McConnell and Alison Grimes have been proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: American politics. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Explanation

To be very brief, it isn't you; it's them. However, that says very little.

Some editing areas in Wikipedia inevitably result in edit wars that cannot be resolved by ordinary means. Sometimes this is because the edit wars reflect real wars, notoriously with Israel and Palestine. These areas result in the conduct disputes being taken to the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom). After evidentiary hearing, which may take four to ten weeks, the ArbCom institutes its remedies, which may include bans and topic-bans. Think of an ArbCom hearing as a sort of private trial. In order to avoid the need to rehear issues arising in known conflict areas, the ArbCom has instituted a system known as discretionary sanctions, which is a sort of draconian remedy that permits any uninvolved administrator (or typically a group of uninvolved administrators) to impose restriction without the need for a new full hearing. This may result in particular editors being banned from particular areas in which they have edited disruptively or tendentiously.

There have been multiple conflicts in various subareas of American politics, which doesn't have wars (fortunately) but does have right-left polarization. After several cases involving areas of American politics, such as Tea Party movement and Gun control, both of which are now under discretionary sanctions, the ArbCom decided that, in any new subarea of American politics in which discretionary sanctions are needed, they can impose them "by motion" without the need for a full trial. For the full ruling, see WP:ARBAP.

You made a few edits on two articles in which other editors have engaged in edit wars. I am in the process of requesting the ArbCom to extend the discretionary sanctions to the candidates in the Kentucky election. If you haven't edited disruptively or tendentiously, and you haven't, you needn't worry about the request. However, I notified all of the editors who have edited those two articles recently. It isn't you; it's them; but I notified all of the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, this makes a lot of sense. Thank you for the thoughtful explanation. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Geography

Champaign isn't that far from Kentucky, being separated by the Ohio River. The death star really was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, but then time and space had their usual context, as they no longer do where the death star once was. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a great place to live, although if I had my druthers I'd probably pick the other Champagne. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the original Champagne is about 3500 miles from Champaign, and maybe 11.5 hours away including bus to ORD and train from CDG (or 0.02 seconds in relativity). The Champagne supernova, on the other hand, was once 4 billion light-years away and occurred 4 billion years ago, but the remnant no longer has a distance or time, because time and space have altered by gravity. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Living persons violations on Gary Peters article

Next time I see you making edits like these(1,2), I will be forced to go through all of your edits to BLP articles and highlight your infractions on ANI. Putting in quotes like that as if a BLP stated those exact words with such inflammatory language is against our policies. And could get the project into a lot of trouble. It will not be looked at very kindly by other editors from any political bent. Stop it. Dave Dial (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello there. I'd encourage you to take content disputes to the relevant article's talk page. And I'm not sure how directly quoting an individual's own words is a BLP violation. Champaign Supernova (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not about a content dispute, it's about you making BLP violations. If you want to pretend that you didn't know you were quoting right to life's distorted version of a real Peter's quote, then you should read the source before you add material into articles. Most especially BLPs. If you want to make a claim that the RTL quote is just as good as Peter's own words, you should not edit any BLP articles on the project. Either way, insert the distorted quote again and you will be blocked. Dave Dial (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. Looking back on the source, I can see I mistakenly attributed to Peters what were in fact an opposing organization's words. It was an honest mistake, and I'm glad you reverted the edits, which are obviously not appropriate for a WP:BLP. I'd encourage you to WP:AGF. If you'd simply reverted the edits or brought up your concerns on the article talk page, this all could have been worked out there. In the future, please WP:AGF rather than aggressively lashing out. Champaign Supernova (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3