en User talk:Safehaven86 Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Safehaven86. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Club for Growth Action, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dan Sullivan. 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) 10:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

On the United States Senate election in Arizona, 2010 page, your edit caused a wikilink error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
On the Morning Joe page, your edit caused a wikilink error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
On the Jihad Watch page, your edit caused a wikilink error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MacIver Institute, 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep at it!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I've been really impressed with the quantity and quality of your contributions to our politics-related articles the last few weeks. You've been particularly awesome at making key sentences clearer, more neutral and more encyclopedic. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention

Safehaven86, Thank you for the time and attention you have put into the Rasmussen Reports page. We appreciate your efforts to keep the record straight and the information as balanced as possible. One thing we did notice is that the election results only go through 2012 -- is there any way to get the 2014 Midterm Election results added? Thank you for your consideration! RasmussenReports (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Rasmussen Reports, Jan 14, 2015

Hello. First, I encourage you to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. If you are affiliated with Rasmussen Reports, you would have a COI. Having a COI doesn't mean you're not allowed to edit Wikipedia, it just means you have to tread very lightly. It's not advisable for you to make any edits to the Rasmussen Reports page or any affiliated pages. Your best course of action is to use the article's talk page to initiate a discussion about any proposed edits and build consensus for those edits. Once consensus is built, a different editor (one not affiliated with Rasmussen Reports) can make the edits on the actual article. What I'd recommend is that you start at the talk page and include your recommended edits as well as any relevant reliable sources to aid in discussion. Take care to use sources external to Rasmussen Reports (i.e. nothing published directly by the company), and to avoid a promotional tone. If you initiate a discussion on the talk page I may contribute, but I can't make any promises as I'm rather busy at the moment. Thanks, and let me know if you have further questions. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

SourceWatch

I certainly agree with much you say. In my own confused state I'm thinking of how well does II (and other groups) stand up to the "ALECexposed" and SPN and anti-Koch brothers agendas of CMD. The SourceWatch article on II has a large section devoted to those topics, and it includes various resources. With this in mind I was thinking SourceWatch may be a starting point for more/other research. (Or maybe it can be banned from WP altogether as being hopelessly POV, But I'm not thinking this will happen.) In any event, as I figure out what where I'm going on this, I am taking your comments to heart. Especially about your comments as to how current SW is. For example, the SW article on Steve Forbes was last edited in 2008. Well, I'm going to remove the link and see who is watching. Here goes.... (Thanks!) – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I appreciate it. While I'm skeptical that SourceWatch is useful in most cases (due to the "attack" tone it seems to take plus the out-of-date nature of most of its articles), I think the best approach for now is to assess each page on a case-by-case basis. It's apparent to me that they've let a number of articles go while focusing resources on other articles. Therefore I wouldn't feel comfortable saying we should never link to them. I think it's best to assess each potential link on its individual merits, as the quality of their articles appears to me to vary widely. Overall, as with any open wiki, I think the wisest approach to take is usually to cull the open wiki article for reliable sources to use, then integrate those reliable sources into the WP article. Thanks for your work in this area! Safehaven86 (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for the Barnstar! Truly the highlight of my day!! (I am happy to see that my gnomish efforts on the project get noticed and appreciated.) Best wishes and happy editing to you, Safehaven. – S. Rich (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Common Cause exclamation mark?

You guys understand that while of course WP is expected to be neutral, sources need not be neutral. A fellow editor pointed out to me the RSN archive WP:RSN as a resource, and found one brief discussion there of Common Cause: "Common Cause may be leftist but they are a strong source...". Is it your position that Common Cause and SoureWatch may not be used as sources on Wikipedia?

My issue is with sources that fail verification. The Common Cause source you used did not in any way verify the information you were attempting to add to an article. So it doesn't really matter that's is Common Cause (or in this case, Common Cause reprinting something published by ALEC), it matters that the information added and associated citation don't sync up. And no, I don't think SourceWatch is ever a WP:RS. It's an open wiki. You may be interested in this discussion Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#SourceWatch. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited EMILY's List, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wendy Davis. 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) 09:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Merger proposals

Not a big deal at this point, but when proposing a merger you need to post templates on both articles. (I've done the other Donor's Trust article. Let's see if more responses come in.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. When I proposed the merger, I did post notices on both articles. See [1] and [2] I merged the articles after no opposition, but the merge has since been undone by another editor so it looks like a merger template made its way back onto one of the articles. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Charter Schools Manhattan Institute

You and I are going back and forth on this charter school thing. I don't think you grasp that the Manhattan Institute has defined the parameters, logic, and rules of the entire modern discussion about charter schools. You keep saying that 'this doesn't say anything about the institute so why is it relevant', but you aren't grasping that it is all about the model proposed by the Institute. Alright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stew312856 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I've started a discussion in the appropriate place, which is the article's talk page. Unless you have a source saying the Institute has defined the entire modern discussion about charter schools, that's just your opinion. The Manhattan Institute's page is not the place to host a debate on the policy merits of charter schools. Please see WP:COATRACK. Perhaps try the articles on school choice or education reform. In addition to not even mentioning the Manhattan Institute, the two sources used in the long and WP:UNDUE section don't even meet WP:RS. But anyway, that's a discussion for the talk page. Safehaven86 (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

I've removed you third opinion request. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved. AT this stage there has been no discussion on the talk page. If the other editor refuses to discuss this, then you should pursue other avenues of dispute resolution rather than seeking a third opinion.Mark Marathon (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Courage Campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Koch. 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) 09:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused

What made you doubt that AFSCME represents firefighters? We represent much more esoteric professions than that, from zookeepers to bank clerks at a major Milwaukee bank to chaplains (see Mychal Judge for one of ours who gave his life in the line of duty for the FDNY). --Orange Mike | Talk 04:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If you consult the article's edit history, you can see that I added the firefighters to the article myself earlier today. [3] I saw it in one of the book sources I was adding, but then it didn't feature prominently on the AFSCME website or in the the other sources I was consulting and adding to the article, so I decided to trim it from the lead. AFSCME represents dozens of professions so I thought only a few should be listed in the lead, and I weighed the relative frequency with which various memberships were mentioned in WP:RS when deciding to add a representative sample to the lead. Add it back if you like. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a biggie; clearly good faith on both our parts. Thanks as always for caring. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rideshare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uber. 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) 09:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)