User talk:Champaign Supernova/Archive 3

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Free Press (organization), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert McChesney. 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) 09:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, Illinois!

No temperature here (0F). How's that workshop coming along? Hugh (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're following up on your hostile jabs at Talk:State Policy Network. After the way you acted on that talk page, I really have no interest in engaging with you further. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Justice

Hey! I reverted some deletions you made on the IJ article, and added a discussion on the Talk page. Let me know what you think. Thanks - James Cage (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Rep. Tom Graves?

Hi Champaign Supernova, I found your name (love the handle, btw) via the list of participating editors at WikiProject: Conservatism and I'm wondering if you can take a look at an article I'm working on. I've made some suggestions on Rep. Tom Graves's Talk page and am looking for editors to review, and make such changes as they feel are appropriate.

I'm looking to discuss my changes there rather than making the edits myself as I have a conflict of interest. As I've explained on the article's Talk page, I'm currently working as a paid consultant to Rep. Graves. If you could take a look at my proposed edits and let me know what you think, I welcome your feedback. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Champaign. I posted a new revision last week, based on your feedback, though I see you've been offline a bit recently. If you can take a look in the next few days, I'd be much obliged! Otherwise, I'll see if other editors can help. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, looks like you're still mostly off-wiki at the moment, so you may not have seen I made a suggestion for the article, based on your inquiry into the Calhoun motel situation. Since you're away, I'm going to see if another editor has time to look at it—but if you do get a chance to pop back in, that would be great. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just noticed you were back a few days ago. I'm still looking for assistance on the Graves issue you raised, so if you find the time I'd welcome your help again. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 11:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marking major edits "minor"

Although you may have minor-edit enabled by default (as I do), please use edit summaries and don't mark major edits—such as removing a reference—as minor. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 13:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Miniapolis: I didn't originally remove that reference. It was removed here [1] by another user, and in what I believe to be a minor edit, I was simply fixing a reference error by removing a stray reference tag to a citation that was no longer in the article. I didn't make the decision to remove the original reference, I was simply removing stray mark-up, so I believe this qualifies as a minor edit. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but minor edits aren't exempt from the edit-summary recommendation (especially for an article as actively edited as this one). Miniapolis 23:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More edits marked as minor that remove references with no edit summary:

1. Center for Media and Democracy
2. Koch brothers Exposed documentary
3. NBC News, Salon
4. The Washington Post

Please discuss edits removing references on the article talk page. Please provide an edit summary for any edit removing a reference. Please do not mark edits that remove references as minor. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh: Thanks for letting me know you're WP:WIKIHOUNDING me. I'm laughing a bit at the irony of an editor who has been repeatedly blocked for misconduct trying to Wiki-school other editors. Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

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 Climate change, 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 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.

Hugh (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

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 the Tea Party movement, 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 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.

Hugh (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of GreenFacts for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GreenFacts 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/GreenFacts_(2nd_nomination) 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. Jacques de Selliers (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Champaign Supernova. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last bit of help with Tom Graves?

Hey Champaign Supernova, you've been so helpful in editing and approving my suggestions for Tom Graves, thanks again for all your work there. Have you by any chance seen my last bit of proposed language? I posted it here last week, but I haven't gotten any feedback from editors yet. If you have a free moment, could you check it out and let me know what you think? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch. I've already helped quite a bit with the article so I think it's a good idea to get some other eyes on it at this point. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks again for all your help; I really do appreciate it. I'll look for other interested and politically literate editors. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice regarding American politics

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 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.

Again, this notice does not imply misconduct. I am leaving this notice on the talk page of all editors who have recently participated in any ANEW report about Americans for Prosperity, because that page is now subject to a 1RR restriction. —Darkwind (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see you're kind of getting bombarded with alerts, but I needed to leave this one because the topic area involved much more clearly applies to Americans for Prosperity. Sorry if it seems like overkill. —Darkwind (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thanks! Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits at Americans for Prosperity violate 1RR. Please self-revert your recent edits. Please discuss edits you anticipate may be considered controversial with one or more of your collaborators at article talk prior to your edits. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in establishing a collaboartive editing environment. Hugh (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they do--per WP:3RR: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." That is what I did--so that would be one reversion within 24 hours, which according to my understanding of the discretionary sanctions is allowed. User talk:Darkwind, could you clarify? Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. 11:03, 6 July 2015 through 11:18, 6 July 2015 1st edit, 15 uninterrupted consecutive edits including multiple reversions
2. 11:19, 6 July 2015 through 11:42, 6 July 2015 2nd edit within 1 hour, 7 uninterrupted consecutive edits including multiple reversions, a 1RR vio

Of course as an experienced editor you well understand that removing content or references added by another editor is a revert. At this point in this article’s history pretty much anything worth adding or deleting is a revert. Regardless of the particulars of the definition of a revert, your recent edits do not seem to me to be embracing the spirit of the intention of the recent imposition of discretionary sanctions, that is, to restore a collaborative editing environment to the article. We are asked to discuss at talk any edits we anticipate may be considered controversial by one or more of our fellow editors. Please demonstrate your commitment to collaborative editing by self-reverting your recent violation of the discretionary sanctions and discuss your proposed changes at talk. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice this edit by MrX [2] that fell between other consecutive edits of mine. I think it's clear from the edit history of the page that I was making one consecutive chunk of edits from 16:03 to 16:42. Another editor made an intervening edit which was helpful, because it resolved a tag I'd added. I submit that this is exactly the type of collaborative editing this article needs, and would welcome more such activity and less pedantic talk page warnings from other editors. In any event, I will await Darkwind's thoughts on whether I violated the 1RR. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"this is exactly the type of collaborative editing this article needs" Your edits deleted neutral, verifiable, reliably sourced content, and deleted reliable source references, without prior discussion at talk. Any competent editor would anticipate some of these edits might be considered controversial. Your edits are exactly the type that brought us discretionary sanctions. Please demonstrate your commitment to collaborative editing by self-reverting your recent violation of 1RR and discussing your proposed changes at talk. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm-hmm. That's why I see you chiding Viriditas for their entirely un-discussed +48,411 change earlier today, right? Oh wait...I don't see that. Huh. P.S., if you want to call my competence into question, don't beat around the bush. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds

Hello Champaign Supernova, thank you for your strong commitment to wide community participation in Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Among your comments at a recent report at WP:ANI you expressed concern regarding the notification to our good colleagues at WP:CONSERVATISM of Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. May I respectfully ask, in your view how long should we extend the comment period of Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds to accommodate full participation from our good colleagues at WP:CONSERVATISM? There is no deadline. We will hold off on the close of Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds until we hear from you. Please reply at WP:ANI. Thank you again for your support and thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Rather than answering my question about why you never posted the RFC at WikiProject Conservatism, your technique for trying to extend the RFC comment period so as to attract more votes supportive of your position is to act as if I suggested extending the comment period. As if it's my idea. Ha! Really brilliant. Congratulations on your attempted gamesmanship, it's more transparent than you might have hoped. Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. You can find my answer in my "initial statement" at ANI, following "WP:RFC reminds us...", sorry you missed it. Sorry, I mistakenly thought you were concerned about participation in Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I respectfully ask, on 27 July 2015 you raised the option of notifying WP:CONSERVATISM at Talk:Americans for Prosperity, why did you not notify WP:CONSERVATISM of Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my RFC. It's not my job to notify anyone about it. I pointed out that you failed to notify WikiProject Conservatism because I mistakenly thought you may have been interested in engaging in a non-biased, inclusive attempt at an RFC, but unfortunately I was wrong. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering posting this ANI...

I'm considering posting this ANI relating to the conduct of HughD. As I link to some of your posts I would be interested in your views. [[3]] Springee (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI [[4]] Springee (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William J. Knight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Knight. 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) 15:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]