once again, I repeat to you: "I must insist that you immediately cease and desist making wholesale deletes of my edits simply because they pose inconvenient facts to you. rather, you should provide your own edits to show that Moore's statements are factual" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 23:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
your words quoted:
"the government data does not mention stephen moore, or his assertions, anywhere"
the government data directly refute Moore's assertions of what government data say. the fact that the data do not specifically mention Moore is irrelevant.
"none of the data sources mention moore"
the data sources directly refute Moore's assertions of "facts." the fact that they do not specifically mention Moore is irrelevant.
"this page isn't for debating moore's beliefs"
I am not doing that. I am providing independent, objective, non-partisan, authoritative third-party sources that factually refute assertions of "facts" that Moore has made, not his "beliefs"
"media matters not a reliable source here"
if you checked the links, you will see that they are solely Fox News video clips of Moore making the assertions attributed to him; they do not contain any Media Matters analysis or commentary whatsoever, Media Matters is simply re-transmitting Fox News video that proves Moore said what is attributed to him
"Your recent edit to Stephen Moore seemed less than neutral to me"
in fact, my edits are 100% factual and non-prejudicial. the fact that they may not comport with your political viewpoints is unfortunate, but I must insist that you immediately cease and desist making wholesale deletes of my edits simply because they pose inconvenient facts to you. rather, you should provide your own edits to show that Moore's statements are factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talk • contribs) 22:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Club for Growth, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages David McIntosh and Andy Harris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Club for Growth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Sununu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Club for Growth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Allen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Club for Growth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vernon Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Received your note, thank you! Sure, let's collaborate on improving Club for Growth Club_for_Growth ! I'm not sure what to do next though, sould we make a new section under the talk page and go from there?Patriot1010 (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Safehaven. I went ahead and made some edits to the page, trying wherever possible to cite independent sources. I will continue to look for independent sources for all changes, but some of the factual inaccuracies are just due to a confusion I observed between the Paul E. Singer Foundation and the Paul and Emily Singer Family Foundation (they are different groups). There were some mix-ups between the two organizations' activites, and correcting those would be hard to cite (although now I've explained it here). But I will try to remain responsive and keep the page updated to reflect our Foundation's activities, and again, I very much appreciate the note. SingerFoundation (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Safehaven86, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and am feeling my way. I raised some concerns about the CPI article on its talk page. Would you mind taking a look, since you seem to be a frequent editor of that article? Thanks.Dh journalist (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Dh Journalist[reply]
Safehaven86. I appreciate your attention to this and see that you have made some good edits. I still disagree with labeling CPI as a liberal group based a parenthetical description written nearly 20 years ago with no sourcing. Again, I'm new here. So how does this disagreement get resolved? Do other editors weigh in? Sorry for being so noviceDh journalist (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Council of Trustees and Alumni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Benno Schmidt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Safehaven86. You have new messages at Talk:Center for Public Integrity. Message added 05:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I like the "too much time" on WP userbox. But is 3.1k edits really too much? You've hardly started. BTW, the other day I saw a guy at LA Fitness with Munch's The Scream tattooed on his shoulder! (And thanks for the SD Union clarification.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lee Fang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Koch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I cleaned up a poorly written article; I assume you have a vested interest in the previous version. (Note added by Savehaven86: this comment was made by User:Mukogodo)
You removed a number of reliable sources without explanation or discussion. Are you familiar with WP:GOODFAITH? I encourage you to read it, and reply to my comments on the article's talk page rather than coming to my talk page to make accusations about my intent. Safehaven86 (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having the conversation jump back and forth from one place to the other is needlessly difficult. Do you think we could try to keep the discussion all in one place? If it's OK with you I'd rather stay at BLPN, but either place will do so long as we can preserve some semblance of continuity. Thanks. Roccodrift (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. I am confused by the multiple threads. If we reach a consensus at BLPN, I want to make sure to prominently note that on the article s talk page so future editors don't end up needing to reinvent the wheel. Anyway, I'll stick to BLPN. Safehaven86 (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Ej50bills and I want to work together to make the best pages on Wikipedia and I think your my person. My interist are in sports,stories,and science. I think you should look at my sandbox everyday and give me pointers to make my stuff better Like yours. Send me a message any time I will get back to you as soon as I get the message so it would be nice if you did the same I can't to hear what you have to say about my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ej50bills (talk • contribs) 07:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if your willing to work with me Evan tho your a girl and prolly hates sports like most females I know get in touched with me when you can. Ej sports freak see you next time from Buffalo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ej50bills (talk • contribs) 08:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Safehaven, for your comments. From Willard F. Harley Jr., John Gray (U.S. author), Dr. Laura, and a thousand others, we know that men and women have basic differences. And in our complex society, where we have broken away from hunting, gathering, and child rearing, these basic differences complicate our relationships and interactions. Then we have Wikipedia, where we don't see or listen to each other. The visual and audible clues which help us communicate aren't there. Nor are pats on the back, handshakes, hugs, etc. So when I attempted to end the "Fecklessness" thread by saying no more discussion & adding hidden text about the end of the conversation, I was unable to fully communicate the fact that I wanted the "discussion relationship" to end because it was not worthwhile for either of us. I thought I was doing so in a polite manner – but the reaction was surprising. In real life the matter would have been handled differently. We might have shaken hands and that would be that. Moving on to more of my personal philosophy, I note in Man's Search for Meaning, that Viktor Frankl wrote each of us is responsible for our own feelings and reactions. (Dr. Laura has the same philosophy.) With this in mind, I think Ellen did not feel bullied because she stated she will not be bullied. She had her own feelings and reactions and I say good for her! (Now her further comments about "Shame!" were a bit over the top, but they did not bother me.) What aggravated me was the use of her reaction about not being bullied to suggest that I was bullying. (I'm not blaming "the victim" at all in this.) I simply don't see how I made any sort of "bullying" comment. That said, I think we simply cannot be held responsible for someone else's feelings when we really haven't done something wrong. (Would I be responsible if Ellen felt anger or sadness or elation or vindictiveness or affection or any other emotion? Is the feeling of "being bullied" some special exception?) Next, what should we do when we feel aggravation? To a certain extent we should "suck it up", and this, I think, applies to both men and women. And once we suck it up, we move on. (And we should not say or feel it is our own fault because we choose to edit Wikipedia.) Thanks again, for letting me have my say. And happy editing. – S. Rich (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To wrap things up: I was puzzled that you would refer to me in the context of your issue with MilesMoney, the issue you expressed on his talk page last week. I had not previously seen that post, however you seem to have clearly expressed your feelings in the matter to Miles. I don't think it was constructive to tie me to that post any more than I would expect to see you mention the thousands of other editors who did not respond there or the thousands of editors who have mentioned other gender-related issues in other contexts on WP in the past. Best wishes. SPECIFICOtalk19:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:SPECIFICO, I mentioned it because you'd accused Srich of bullying female contributors. That's a serious accusation. Your evidence was that another user said she'd felt bullied by him, and you said that the existence of bullying could reasonably be determined by the victim's reaction. I was simply noting that per your logic, MilesMoney bullied me. No, I don't expect that you would have noticed or reacted to that. That would be unreasonable. But I also think it was unreasonable for you to initiate a conversation on Srich's talk page accusing him of something really rotten, without providing evidence. While it's rotten for anyone to be bullied, or for a male editor to bully a female editor, it's also really rotten to make such an accusation without backing it up. If you believe Srich has bullied female editors, you should file an official complaint about that so he can be appropriately sanctioned. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Safe. With respect to Srich, I referred to a single diff which involved a single female editor. The documentation is clear and the conduct was recent. I didn't say "Srich has bullied female editors, plural. I am not obligated to file an official complaint and in the case of Srich I believe he's capable of regulating his behavior once the concern has been identified. Hence, I feel my approach was direct and was sufficient for the matter at hand. I'd hate to seek official sanctions when collegial, bilateral communication has a reasonable prospect of resolving the problem. SPECIFICOtalk00:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll observe that EllenCT never said she felt bullied. And even if she did feel bullied, what was my particular conduct that provoked that feeling? I've closed discussions on my talk page before, with male and female editors – no one has said (as I recall) that they felt bullied. Hmmmmm. Is one method of closing appropriate for females, but not for males? Or how about the converse? Perhaps this is a good subject for a Wikipedia Essay. – S. Rich (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I always try to be direct rather than dwell on passive/aggressive asides. Why don't you ask @EllenCT: that question. That's your best course if you're looking for a clear and direct response. SPECIFICOtalk02:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Safehaven86, re: these comments, I do want to congratulate you for bringing up to MilesMoney that the use of accusations like "Conservative cloud" are personal attacks and bullying. Some of us have had to endure the same, with even non-lobertarian/Austrian types being called cultists and fan club members, etc. if we tried to defend policy and create a more NPOV article. I myself have been remiss in not identifying it more as bullying and personal attacks; and instead I tend to put it more in the context of POV editing. While we can't always get people to agree it's a problem on a personal or article talk page, when we take it to ANI we should at least be able to get some support and the individual should get a warning. In this case it was the final straw and he got more than than.
Recently I got a minor warning for whining too much on article talk pages about POVs and alluding to questionable collaborative behaviors -- instead of going to ANI! It would be nice if Wikiquette Noticeboard was still around since I know it took me years to go even there to deal with personal attacks and bullying from male editors. So ANI was for me, and is still for many women, an even bigger step up - it's easier to quit. The GenderGap group discussed this issue a lot at its inception then a lot of guys joined and started harassing us for discussing concrete ways of dealing with it and now the group focuses on abstruse issues of statistics and announcements of trainings. Women in the group have given up discussing the various administrative ways to deal with it. At least we can ban these guys from our talk pages and remove annoying posts that come out of the blue. I think making it clear on my talk page I'm in my sixties at least discourages one kind of post from young guys! :-) Keep on keeping on... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)17:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Citizens for Self-Governance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Privacy Act (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sabah state election, 1990, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal Democratic Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donors Capital Fund, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Brooks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Safehaven86. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Schmidtz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vernon Smith. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited America Votes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Walker. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited State Policy Network, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freedom Foundation. 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.
