Hello. I am new around here. First of all thank you for taking the time to edit Wikipedia. In reviewing your some of your edits a question arose. On this edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/713537787

You stated trimming promo, conform to sources. Those two statements were in the associated sources. As a noob what should one know to understand why those statements were removed? Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for reaching out! You're correct, "Brown said that NAGR launched a campaign to help the bill pass using email, direct mail, telephone calls and social media to reach 80,000 Kansans" is in this source. I removed it because it felt somewhat promotional to me, as it was Brown, the head of the organization, making the report on numbers. If a third-party source had made the claim or corroborated it in their own voice, I'd feel better about it. The second portion of the paragraph I removed was "The bill passed the state legislature and Governor Sam Brownback signed the bill into law on April 2nd, making Kansas the sixth state allowing constitutional carry." I removed that because the way it appeared in the article, along with the other information in the paragraph, made it look to me like our Wikipedia article was giving credit to NAGR for the bill passing. This source says NAGR was a proponent of the bill, but it also mentions other groups like the NRA. So it seemed to be inappropriate to appear to "give credit" to the NAGR when in fact NAGR was apparently acting as part of a coalition of groups in support of the bill. I'm sure there are ways to rewrite this information to address these concerns, and I'd be happy to work with you on the article's talk page. Thanks! Safehaven86 ( talk) 16:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC) reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ooty. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

[ [1]] Springee ( talk) 15:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Springee, I have nothing to add. It's only a matter of time before he hangs himself with his own rope. Safehaven86 ( talk) 04:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC) reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Princess Beatrice of York. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi and thanks for using Wikipedia! I have not done anything wrong, and I am not intimidated by your "warnings". I suggest you review the page on User space harassment. Have a great day. Theknightswhosay ( talk) 04:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

It's ironic that you're suggesting to me that I read a page that you're clearly not familiar with. See the section WP:NPLT at Wikipedia:Harassment, which clearly says you should not accuse other editors of libel, which, bizarrely, you did. Safehaven86 ( talk) 15:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Marriage. Legobot ( talk) 04:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Duke Ellington. Legobot ( talk) 04:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Could you please review the recent activity there? The same user attempted to redact a substantial portion of content, citing a talk page discussion, but there was none. I am becoming suspicious that this user may have some professional link to the Tom Steyer article. Could you please look into it? There do seem to be some connections:

• https://www.buildquorum.com/act/Tom-Steyer-Breakthrough-Climate-Campaign-_R9

GreenChairBMX ( talk) 22:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Yeah I really can't tell what's going on. It looked to me like everyone agreed on the talk page, so I don't know what went wrong. Safehaven86 ( talk) 16:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for you kind remarks re: Delegates Unbound. I do think there is a place for a brief note about that group and of Free the Delegates at Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 - perhaps two sentences or so. I say go for it. Neutrality ^talk 19:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Neutrality, thanks for the feedback. I added a few sentences at the campaign's article. Safehaven86 ( talk) 21:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks Safehaven. Can you explain why my edit on Institute_for_Energy_Research didn't conform to the NPOV policy? I was careful to cite the Guardian as a reference. Would there be a better way to state their ties to the oil industry? Thanks, WyoChris ( talk) 16:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply

WyoChris, thanks for reaching out. I am going to respond to you on the talk page of Institute for Energy Research. Safehaven86 ( talk) 19:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon. Legobot ( talk) 04:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I apologize for the pestering, but could you please review the talk page? I hope I am not erroneous in my interpretation of your previous comments, because UserQurom816 keeps attempting the exact same edit, with no further discussion and no effort to compromise. GreenChairBMX ( talk) 21:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply

GreenChairBMX, I will take a look tomorrow when I have some more time. Safehaven86 ( talk) 21:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello again! I proposed a compromise on the page but no one has answered yet. Care to comment? GreenChairBMX ( talk) 22:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC) reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Novak Djokovic. Legobot ( talk) 04:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, thanks for reaching out. I'm a bit confused, because before making edits on the National Council of La Raza article I disclosed my affiliation with the group on the article's talk page and provided reasons for the changes we're requesting. The article has inaccurate information and makes assertions about us that are not neutral. For instance, we are not a "far-left group," but a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization.

Thank you, NCLR Comms ( talk) 16:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi NCLR Comms, and thanks for reaching out. Please carefully review the message I left on your talk page. Because you have disclosed that you work at NCLR, you should not edit the NCLR page. You should instead participate on the article's talk page and make edit requests as necessary. If you provide reliably, independently sourced and neutral content on the article's talk page, you can request that other editors who do not have a COI implement that material. However, you should refrain from editing the article yourself. I have removed "far-left" from the article's introduction, since that information was not reliably sourced. Safehaven86 ( talk) 18:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Consideration (song). Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC) reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Neonicotinoid. Legobot ( talk) 04:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Hey there, Safehaven86!

I was wondering if you could help out with a page merge or move. The articles for Efraim Diveroli and David Packouz (both who are subject of the same movie, War Dogs) are essentially exactly the same. Both men are notable for the exact same thing. I was wondering if you could get them merged or something, or moved to a page -- I don't know if each individual is in and of himself noteworthy, so much as what their company, AEY, did. Either way, articles should definitely be merged at the very least. Thanks! -- FuzzyGopher ( talk) 02:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'd recommend proposing a merger. That way interested editors can weigh in and you can assess whether there is a consensus to merge. Safehaven86 ( talk) 02:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mock the Week. Legobot ( talk) 04:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi Safehaven86, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Widr ( talk) 17:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 page, your edit caused a broken reference name ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bompiani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon. 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) 11:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC) reply

I do not think you deserve this, atleast from my ends. Just removed it. Light2021 ( talk) 10:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Light2021! Much appreciated. Safehaven86 ( talk) 14:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi Safehaven86. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC) reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mel Brooks. Legobot ( talk) 04:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC) reply

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.

Grofers

added a link pointing to Indian

Udemy

added a link pointing to Excel

UrbanClap

added a link pointing to Indian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

about this comment, where did anyone swear in an edit summary, and specifically where did someone swear at you (as in "F*ck you") in an edit summary? Please reconsider that entire comment. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 21:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Jytdog I interpreted this edit summary as being unduly hostile and aggressive. I've been bullied and harassed on Wikipedia and I don't take kindly to unnecessary and overt displays of aggression. Such incivility is one reason why 90% of Wikipedia editors are men. I am a female editor and it's not easy to be in such a small minority. Editors not in the minority tend to have privileges that allow them to get away with actions that minority groups don't get away with--it's the same online as in real life. I have tried to interact civilly with you, although in our first interaction you jumped all over me as if I was a WP:SPA WP:COI editor. I could have reported you for making an apparent accusation of WP:COI against the terms of your topic ban, but I didn't. I'm not interested in being vindictive, but in building the most reliable, accurate, and neutral encyclopedia that we can. Hopefully we can both do that. Safehaven86 ( talk) 04:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply

i did not swear at you. call me a douchebag if you like but I did not say "fuck you" - i did not swear at you. I have sworn at someone once in my years here. Jytdog ( talk) 04:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I am glad you did not swear at me. Thanks for clarifying. My larger point is that swearing and using aggressive language--whether intended directly at another editor or not--can contribute to an environment of hostility that is not welcoming. And that is a problem. Safehaven86 ( talk) 04:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I hear you. From my end, you have not acknowledged that the article you created was promotional, and failed to use even the negative information that was in the sources you brought. I have no idea why you wrote such a promotional article and I don't really care - my focus is on content. promotional editing is a problem. Jytdog ( talk) 04:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Did it occur to you that the article was not complete when you began editing it? I'd created it from scratch less than four hours before you began editing it. It was clearly a work in progress, and a stub. I'm glad other editors began editing it--that's what's supposed to happen; that's how we build a collaborative encyclopedia. No one, myself included, is obligated to push publish on a fully comprehensive and flawless article. I did the best I could given time constraints. I intended to keep working on the article later. That's the best any of us can do. Safehaven86 ( talk) 04:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for replying. Jytdog ( talk) 05:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply

It is good to analyse article. Though your intend is doubtful. Would not be better to improve those articles or write factual evidence. I would be highly thankful. Seems like someone coming to my article to find micro level mistakes possible but not really want to improve it. Thanks though it helps me contributing better. Keep doing it, I will improve myself. Light2021 ( talk) 21:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Light2021, I don't understand what you mean. I am removing WP:BLP tags that you've added to articles about businesses. Businesses are not people, living or dead, and the tags don't make any sense. Please also see WP:TAGBOMBING. Safehaven86 ( talk) 21:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I hope you dint! Thanks anyway! Light2021 ( talk) 21:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Whole30. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Oh, give me a break. This is not edit warring. In talk page discussion, you said the WSJ source wasn't your concern, but the Self source. So I added back the WSJ source, but not the Self source. I thought we were having a productive discussion and I was responding to your feedback on sourcing. Safehaven86 ( talk) 17:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC) reply