Talk:Peter Roskam/Archive 1

message: This edit is unhelpful. AMT "relief" is empty rhetoric, and Wikipedia is not in the business of propagating Republican propaganda. We need a word that explains what "relief" means in this context rather than mindlessly repeating Republican talking points. Wikipedia would call the Bush tax cuts "tax cuts" rather than "tax relief" as the Republicans call them (or "taxes deferred" as an economist would). I attempted to insert a more descriptive word and was reverted. Please explain Roskam's position with meaningful language, if you can. For starters, is he in favor of increasing or decreasing the number of people who fall under the AMT? — goethean ॐ 22:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Goethean What source do you have that Roskam wants to increase the number of people that fall under the AMT or "expand" it. I do not have a complete knowlege of his exact position on it but from what I have gathered he does not want to change the number of people who would fall under the tax but cut it in totality. If his position cannot be explained in a more specific way would it be better if any referance to a position on the Alternative Minimum Tax be removed from the article?--Tdl1060 22:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: :Roskam supports tort reform and fiscal responsibility
What candidate does not claim to support "fiscal responsibility"? The phrase is meaningless without specifics. I suggest that we delete the phrase. — goethean ॐ 20:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoiding generalities

message: User:Tdl1060 has been deleting the following information from the article: 
:Norquist has been criticized for aiding convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff as a financial conduit.
Norquist, a Roskam supporter, laundered money for a convicted criminal. This is not notable or related? — goethean ॐ 16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticisms of Grover Norquist are fair game. Roskam chose to accept support from Norquist; had he declined it wouldn't be an issue. It doesn't matter if Norquist has been convicted or not. There is a reliable source (Washington Post) that voiced a criticism. That is an objective fact. 18:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norquist 

message: I am concerned about a couple of users. Perhaps they are new, so I will try to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think User:Reader5's conduct has been questionable. All of his/her edits have been to the Peter Roskam article. Verify User:Reader5's contributions here. Many of the edits have been deletions of sourced information. Several of the additions cite Roskam's campaign web site as the sole source. Aside from basic biographical information, I think it would be best not to use such a site. See reliable sources. Lastly, information was been presented in a highly biased manner, i.e. noting Roskam received a 100% rating from an environmental group two years ago, but neglecting to mention he received a 67% rating in 2005 and only 40% in 2003. I try to remain open-minded, but it comes across as the work of a campaign operative. I'm hopeful that this conduct will improve. Just so you know, I'm not opposed to information favorable to Roskam. I just think it needs to be done properly. A more recent edit, noting Roskam has voted for tax cuts and providing a link to the Illinois General Assembly is much better form. 204.16.84.50 16:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You both need to read Assume good faith. These accusations aren't really actionable from the point of view of Wikipedia. Campaign workers are free to edit articles (although several have been embarrassed, and one has even resigned, over press coverage of their actions). Comment on contributions rather than on contributors. — goethean ॐ 16:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Campaign censorship / advocacy

message: Joe's edit
*Why did you delete the picture of Roskam and Cheney? I think that it is quite notable that a State Senator has the support of the vice president of the United States. 
*Why did you delete the picture of Roskam's Chicago Tribune ad? It is certainly relavent to this article. You seem to be embarrassed by Roskam's career as a lawyer. Furthermore, the picture that you uploaded has no source information while the two pictures that you deleted have complete file information. This reason alone is reason enough to keep the two original pictures instead of yours. 
*Why did you delete the description of the types of cases that Roskam's law firm handles? That is quite relavent to understanding his career. If it is inaccurate, please replace the wording with more accurate wording. 
*Why did you delete Republican Rick Carney's comments about Roskam's political career? They are accurate and sourced. Please do not deleted well-sourced information from articles. This is considered vandalism.
*You can't just insert a quotation from a blog without any introductory explanation or formatting. People won't know that it is a quotation. — goethean ॐ 14:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletions 

message: First off, I believe you have bias and edit this article as well at the Tammy Duckworth article with a very left leaning agenda and a political ax to grind.  With that, I have begun to take a look at your heavy hand on this wikiarticle and the first question I ask, directly, is - are you an “official”  admin or just some one who as taken it upon them self to sit on this article and keep out,control and steer the content of this article though the clever use of semantics and augment for  your own agenda in mind.?  What makes you have the right?  I have seen your hand in this article thought the weeks in the logs and I  have begun to compile them, and with time, I will be able to prove my point, but for now, I will assume good faith and engage you in this discussion.  
:Don't waste your time trying to prove bias. Assume good faith is an official Wikipedia policy enforcable by ban.— goethean ॐ 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from Cheney's low poll numers, there's no reason why the Cheney picture should be removed, and if you remove it, I will revert you. — goethean ॐ 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Your opinion of Eric Zorn is irrelevant. Zorn works for a little paper you might have heard of called the Chicago Tribune. If statements are correctly cited to the source of thev statement, you cannot remove them. I will link you to the appropriate Wikipedia policy  — goethean ॐ 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The text you have a problem with is from Roskam's website. It is his own words describing his law office. It is relevant and sourced and as such should not be removed. I will revert any removal of sourced and relevant information from this article. — goethean ॐ 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The difference is that Wikipedia policy is on my side, not yours. Again: the deletion of sourced relevant information from the article is vandalism. — goethean ॐ 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How about: There is no bias. You are free to add whatever sourced, relevant information to the article that you want. What you did with the hotline blog was to simply cut-and-paste material from a website. That is not allowed, because it basically makes Wikipedia redistribute copyrighted information, an act for which Wikipedia could get sued. I don't want that, so I will delete copyrighted info from the article. You have to re-write it accurately yourself. — goethean ॐ 15:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  response 

message: 70.230.67.190 with malice decided to publish a real name associated with an Ip account, with out consent, on the internet, which is, in my humble opinion reckless and with out scruples and physically endangers this person. 
ADMIN take it off--207.67.146.179 14:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know exactly what's going on here but I'm going to err on the side of caution and I've deleted that edit from the edit history.  I've also temporarily blocked this article from anon editing. Gamaliel 16:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PLAYING NICE, a new low

message: PropolFirst off, it don't belong, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Roskam&diff=68066604&oldid=68064629 it's not NPOV or encyclopedic in tone and implies Guilt by association.  Second, these additions are controversial, and adding many instances of these controversial additions, at one time, then forcing me to dispute these while these controversial additions are allowed to remain on the page by brute force of your reversions is
not fair and does not allow proper discussion. I don't agree that is fair.
Also I am going to ask if this article can be reviewed by more neutral parties.  So in the mean time I am going to stick a NPOV in Dispute tag on the article. Thank you
--Joehazelton 23:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Dispute The unencyclopedic tone of Roskam's page

message: goethean you don't read me so well, so read this....[Fallacy]
here are some of the old favoites now playing on Roskam's page. 
*[Hasty generalization]
*[Guilt by association]
*[ Ad hominem ]
*[Texas sharpshooter fallacy]
*[Non Sequitur Non Sequitur ]
*[Fallacy of Many Questions]
Also, lets not forget the Wikipidia OFFICAL policy about Bios for living persons WP:LIVING I will provide the HARD WORKING Goethean The link here so that he may not have to work so hard.
[Biographies of living persons]
I quote from that page this...
Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors
The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics in case you represent a minority view as if it were the majority one.(italic mine) If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.
Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.(italic mine) 
When I get time in the next day or so, I will go over the article bit, by painful bit and 
show were some of the above list apply. IS THIS SCIENTIFIC ENOUGH FOR YOU????
With this the edit war is on. Since, I write at a 6 grade level or as you have so eloquently
and kindly have stated "half-literate", I will make it simple and clear to the hard working,  Goethean why there are parts in this article that are Bulldonkey.
BTW, do you live in the sixth? and are you a Democrat?
just curious? I make no apologies for what I am
why hide yours when I have shown you mine?  
Also, I WILL REVERT ANY NEW "STUFF" IN THE MEAN TIME UNTIL I CAN FORMULATE MY RESPONSE TO
THE HARDWORKING GOETHEAN.
So,you have nice day and chill.Joehazelton 19:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV DISPUTE - GOETHEAN'S POV 

message: Substituted at 15:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I think this section is properly sourced and proper for inclusion in the article.  Please leave it.  --BenBurch (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Restoring section contentiously deleted by .  I see no cogent argument advanced for omitting the sourced material.   Wikidemo (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Heh.  Now he is back as a IP.  Its pretty clear he is likely an employee of Roskam.  --BenBurch (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder in what capacity. Public relations? :D Gamaliel (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that's a for-real possibility I would try to find that out and then contact the office directly or through Wikipedia email.  As much as it can be satisfying to vanquish a sockpuppet or COI editor, sometimes they have a real concern they just don't know how to express through the right channels.  If they can calmly and rationally explain on this talk page, in English rather than Wikipedia policy arguments, why the material is unfair or wrong, then we can listen.  Once or twice I've seen this work out to everyone's satisfaction.  The alternative, if they get caught slanting their own article, is that some newspaper might pick this up and it becomes a PR embarrassment.  There are a few cases of politician staffers being caught editing their own article, as most people remember.  Could just be an enthusiatic (SIC)supporter though.  Wikidemo (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

text: 88 GA Master index lists the status of SB-0779 on page 61. The bill never left the Senate and Roskam, a member of the House, never voted for the bill. Is there anything that he actually voted on that can be added here instead? I'm not sure why we need to include this item from 1993, except that it was incorrectly characterized by his opponent in the last election per the sources listed in the education section. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently removed and restored Education section. 

message: It has been pointed out that I read Wikidemo's characterization of the blocked IP editor as being a characterization of myself.  --BenBurch (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  Thanks.  Wikidemo (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, seriously, how can we find the text of this proposed law?  --BenBurch (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.... legislative history of the state.  State archives?  Online, maybe from a government office or a library within the state of Illinois.  There must be lots of Wikipedians there with access.  Or email / ask one of the journalists?  Nevertheless, that's just a reality check and perhaps material to quote.  We're not supposed to base legal conclusions on our own legal analysis....we need to find someone with some credibility and point to their analysis.  Also, looking at the sources there may be grounds to say that the accusations themselves were of note, so se can indeed say that Roskam was criticized by commentators (or some comparable language - attacked in political TV ads, etc) on the claim that his legislation would ban Dr. Seuss, Shakespeare, etc.  It doesn't look like a stray comment here or there.  It seems he did face widespread opposition on the point (but he seems to deny it).  The controversy can be reported as such if we find solid enough sourcing for it.  These school book banning laws do seem to follow a familiar script. Wikidemo (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks so much for that hard work.  I am about to take my lovely, brilliant spouse to dinner, but I'll pore over that this evening and see if it matches what we've written here.  I'll also use that as a cite.  --BenBurch (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)Thanks...I haven't read that transcript just yet.  Did they read the bill aloud or do you know any way to find it?  Anyway, based on the above it would be neutral and accurate to report that Roskam supported a measure to ban from schools books that expressly counseled for suicide (that's the word, right?).  Although critics (opponents?) and a negative television ad claimed the measure would apply to such uncontroversial books as Romeo and Juliette, Doctor Seuss, It's a Wonderful World, and others, Roskam countered that the bill would not apply to these books because it was narrowly drawn only to apply to books that advocated suicide.  The bill obtained some bipartisan support but ultimately failed.  I don't know if I have it exactly right but some neutral account like that could be told.  We then have a [{WP:WEIGHT]] issue and another question of where to put it in the article if it's included.  Is the bill, or the ongoing negative commentary, sufficiently notable as an issue in his professional life that it helps an encyclopedic understanding of the man to include it.  If so, is that long explanation too much text and how could it be condensed while still being neutral?  I'm not advocating any particular language, just tossing around what could be said assuming we accept Dual Freq's summary above.  Wikidemo (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They did read it aloud but the full text is not in the transcript, starting page 56. One of my points is that Roskam was not in the Illinois Senate in 1993, he was in the House. This debate was about the Senate bill, I can't find a matching bill in the Democratic controlled House. I certainly think there is an issue of undue weight here. Maybe there is some current education issue that Roskam has voted on that can be included here. As I noted above, http://www.ilga.gov/previousga.asp?GA=88 is all that Illinois has online for the 88th GA, certainly full text is available at a library somewhere. I tried to search for house bills and debate in the house about suicide, but I found nothing similar. And the article I found about this referred to the debate in the Senate. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Without the full text I agree with you.  If its found, that is another matter.  Off to dinner.  --BenBurch (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology  

message: Have at it!  --BenBurch (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Massive trolling.  Let me know what edits you want to make, and I can put them in for you.  --BenBurch (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Got 2008 campaign section started... 

message: I suggest that the changes made by  be reverted. The quotation from a congressman from Texas has no relevance to Peter Roskam's biography. If Roskam made no statement regarding his vote, then we don't know why Roskam opposed the bill. — goethean ॐ 17:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Roskam, of Wheaton, defended his vote against the price-gouging bill as a protection of the free market."  I'm not familiar with this legislation except that DCCC ran ads against various incumbents based on their votes on it. Personally, I don't think the Texas quote is needed here, but some statement should be included as to why an opponent would oppose the bill. Something like "while opponents said [gouging] is not [occurring] and would be difficult to prove even if it occurred." from AP's article or similar. The State of Illinois has a page discussing price gouging and the difficulty they have in determining if it has occurred. I seem to recall an Illinois state prosecution against Casey's gen store, right after September 11, 2001, so there must already be something in place for Illinois. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the quote from the Texas congressman. There was nothing in it that was specific to Roskam. Roskam's opinion the matter amd his basis for it is already spelled out in the article. Propol (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy section 

message: I question the value of publishing, on Wikipedia, Roksam's Income, prior to his election to Congress. This is not done for any other biography of political office holders, then why should Roskam be treated any different by Wikipeida?  Just because the some editorializing Tribune blogger wanted to take a cheap shot, it does not mean Wikipeida has to put up every little crufted, gossipy detail written by some blogger.  See WP:BLPSTYLE. Breakgrant (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too question the relevancy and appropriateness of this information to the article.  Just because it is source (by a blog), doesn't mean it belongs here.  --rogerd (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is the Chicago Tribune, clearly a reliable source. The incomes / net worth of political candidates are frequently discussed and notable because they impact their ability to contribute to their own campaigns, aka self funding. Many politicians share copies of their tax returns, frequently attracting considerable media coverage. Also, Roskam is a Public figure and therefore is not entitled to the same expectation of privacy. There is nothing injurious about disclosing Roskam's income; it would be different if information such as a social security number were included in the article. Propol (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it was published in the blog of a Tribune columnist, not the printed newspaper. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that is an incorrect statement; the article was published in the print edition of the Chicago Tribune, in addition to appearing in the Tribune's blog (which is still subject to editorial review anyway). Furthermore, I haven't heard anyone dispute the accuracy of the information presented. Propol (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this so important that wikipeida must publish this mans income for 2005???  Just because a crusading blogger, who works for the Tribune, needs to publish minutia, does not mean it's Encyclopedic in content WP:BLP WP:GRAPEVINE.  Why is this information not found on other Northern Illinois office holders?. Why only Roskam's? What value is this information, other than salacious gossip. Any finally why, so vigorously oppose this? Garywheaton (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow --- $615,000 is minutia? You must be loaded! — goethean ॐ 17:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Just to follow up, Republicans have made an issue of opposing "trial lawyers", and Roskam obviously is one.  That could affect his position on so-called tort reform.  Again, though, that's innuendo unless we have reliable sources that describe the relevance. Wikidemo (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be a Chicago Tribune article connecting the riches that Roskam made off of personal injury claims to his tort reform promises. It must have been removed by our various Republican friends and their sockpuppets. About a year ago, partisans aggressively cleansed the article of anything that they deemed negative. — goethean ॐ 20:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Material like that can go into the child article: Illinois 6th congressional district election, 2006. As a matter of fact, that's exactly where it went. Kossack4Truth (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it's fair to mention that he is a proponent of tort reform despite earning a living as a personal injury plaintiff (but we would have to cite it and it would have to be notable either as a life event or a major criticism of his policy, not just WP:SYNTH, a POV attack, WP:SOAPboxing, or trivia)  Wikidemo (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Roskam's income needs to be listed?

message: Dual Freq, thanks for reverting the re-addition of the education section.  --BenBurch (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Education Again

message: Scjessey has removed a quality portrait photograph I found on Commons, restoring the old version -- what appears to be a Polaroid snapshot. He has also removed well-sourced and highly notable facts from the lead paragraph. The sources were readily available and cited in the body of the article if he had bothered to look. I have reverted him and added the cites to the lead paragraph, in a good-faith effort to make the article better. I stand ready to discuss this edit. Removal of well-sourced material is vandalism. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who Roskam defeated is not biographically important, so it should not form part of the article introduction. These campaign-related facts are properly covered in the body of the article. I have removed them for reasons of undue weight. I removed the portrait in an earlier edit by accident, and I am perfectly happy with the one K4T has found. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More on recent edits

message: The most recent changes to the page have been of a partisan nature, followed with challenges to "prove" the editor wrong.  The reason for removing one portion seems to be the fact that a link to a story has expired; this does not turn the story into "hearsay", it just means that people will now have to go to the library to view the article.  Before the link died, it was viewed by other editors, and was legitimate.  Proof does not need to be found online.  I've cited obituaries in articles that only exist on microfilm or hard copy.
References are made to reporter Eric Kroll's "fanciful speculations"; for that claim, you need to find a reference disproving his printed assertions and proving them to be nothing more than speculation.  "Hearsay" for purposes of Wiki articles is when an editor claims he read or heard something "somewhere" but can't produce a legitimate source.  It does NOT include a report from a reliable source (newspapers are generally considered such) with which one editor disagrees, especially for partisan reasons.
The phrases "did not find fault" and "cleared" are very different things.  The FEC does not generally "clear" people or groups of charges, they just find insufficient reason to pursue further action.  Unless you can find a reference that specifically states that Roskam was "cleared of charges", we go with what is known.
References to Roskam's control (or lack thereof) of a PAC (BTW, "PAC" is an acronym and is normally written in all caps) are irrelevant.  His campaign was found not at fault, but CWF, led by Gary Bauer, was found to have violated election law.  Those are the facts.  Adding the parenthetical phrase "which Roskam's campaign had no control" is both unnecessary and ungrammatical.
Using the word "decisively" is redundant.  As has been stated, a 16% victory is pretty decisive, which is exactly the issue.  It's like calling someone a tall seven-footer.
Summarizing:  If the statement made in a newspaper report is false, that must be proven before removing it.  Removing it because the link to a two-year-old news story in a small suburban paper has finally expired is not grounds for calling it hearsay.  The other edits are just restating things in a euphemistic manner, and WP style seeks to avoid such things.
Before we get into an edit war, let's hear other opinions.  --Couillaud (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a link to the current (pay) archive of the article that was questioned.  It exists.  --BenBurch (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And the user who made the original challenge was identified as a sockpuppet of  and the article semi-protected.  Thanks for the link, as it defeats one of his "arguments" outright. -- Couillaud (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New edit war?

message: Peter Roskam is now a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/members.asp  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcanzo (talk • contribs) 05:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Updating on Committee Assignments 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/chicago/
*:Triggered by \bairport-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Peter Roskam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929101442/http://www.ilenviro.org/publications/files/2005scorecard.pdf to http://www.ilenviro.org/publications/files/2005scorecard.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Did not work. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Peter Roskam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080730221309/http://roskam.house.gov/Newsroom/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=81828 to http://roskam.house.gov/Newsroom/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=81828
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111003045146/http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/glendaleheights/news/x299933368/GlenOaks-Hospital-to-honor-Roskam-for-securing-building-funds/ to http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/glendaleheights/news/x299933368/GlenOaks-Hospital-to-honor-Roskam-for-securing-building-funds/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050410172430/http://www.fec.gov:80/pubrec/fe1998/ilh.htm to http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe1998/ilh.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927003218/http://eqs.sdrdc.com/eqsdocs/00003C0B.pdf to http://eqs.sdrdc.com/eqsdocs/00003C0B.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060930013328/http://www.teamster.org/06news/hn_060517_5.asp to http://www.teamster.org/06news/hn_060517_5.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: All successful! --1990'sguy (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 21 external links on Peter Roskam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.roskamforcongress.com/news/view_article.cfm?id=598
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930033550/http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/93/senate/09300SB3186_01102005_005000R.pdf to http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/93/senate/09300SB3186_01102005_005000R.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070404230122/http://www.advocate.com:80/news_detail_ektid24008.asp to http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid24008.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930024225/http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/93/senate/09300HB3589_11182004_008000A.pdf to http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/93/senate/09300HB3589_11182004_008000A.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070508224946/http://www.fuelcelltoday.com:80/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal/NewsDisplayArticle/0,1602,9003,00.html to http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal/NewsDisplayArticle/0,1602,9003,00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cod.edu/courier/10.20.06/NEWS_10.20.06.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711054101/http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/online/news/articles/2007-03/-3m-given-for-Illinois-hydrogen- to http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/online/news/articles/2007-03/-3m-given-for-Illinois-hydrogen-
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140815051638/http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/gop_reps_oil_independence_by_2.html to http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/07/gop_reps_oil_independence_by_2.html
*Added  tag to http://www.dailyherald.com/politics/story.asp?id=242088
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061213212431/http://www.roskamforcongress.com/news/view_article.cfm?id=629 to http://www.roskamforcongress.com/news/view_article.cfm?id=629
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080730225837/http://roskam.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=96159 to http://roskam.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=96159
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081124234208/http://roskam.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=95758 to http://roskam.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=95758
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927215022/http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=13&GAID=8&DocTypeID=SJR&LegId=17501&SessionID=50&GA=94 to http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=13&GAID=8&DocTypeID=SJR&LegId=17501&SessionID=50&GA=94
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011221529/http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/94/senate/09400SJ0013_05202005_030000D.pdf to http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/94/senate/09400SJ0013_05202005_030000D.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829182608/http://roskam.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=67574 to http://roskam.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=67574
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.roskamforcongress.com/roskamrecord/index.cfm?ID=10
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002200747/http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/2005/may/052405pr-il-roskam_hero.pdf to http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/2005/may/052405pr-il-roskam_hero.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.illinoispolicyinstitute.org/eduemail1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219061216/http://americansforprosperity.org/noclimatetax/ to http://americansforprosperity.org/noclimatetax/
*Added  tag to http://blog.thehill.com/2007/05/18/keep-on-truckingsafely-rep-peter-roskam/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516012524/http://www.roskamforcongress.com:80/roskamrecord/index.cfm?ID=22 to http://www.roskamforcongress.com/roskamrecord/index.cfm?ID=22
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.roskamforcongress.com/blog/comments.cfm?entry_id=10
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928002126/http://www.lakedemocrats.org/dupage/nov96.txt to http://www.lakedemocrats.org/dupage/nov96.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Peter Roskam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070508224946/http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal/NewsDisplayArticle/0%2C1602%2C9003%2C00.html to http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal/NewsDisplayArticle/0%2C1602%2C9003%2C00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Peter Roskam's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "primaryresults":
From 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois: 
From Adam Kinzinger: 
From 2016 United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Peter Roskam]]