User talk:DaltonCastle/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. 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

Satie Nocturnes

Greetings. Could you kindly explain why you rated the article on Erik Satie's Nocturnes C-Class and offer suggestions? There isn't a great deal of literature about those compositions. As it stands the Wiki article has more factual and historical information, carefully sourced, about the Nocturnes than you will find anywhere else (for free) on the internet. Thank You.TheBawbb (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I'm still pretty new around here. Cheers.TheBawbb (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent archiving

Just in case anyone stops by and notices the odd editing ive been doing on my archive, its because when I was a new editor I used to just delete old discussions rather than archiving. So I just pulled them out and put them in my archives. This is something I've wanted to do for a while but just now gotten around to it because I have lots of things on Wikipedia I'd like to work on but so little time.. Thanks! DaltonCastle (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Well done

You've done a great job on the corruption in Argentina page - I was thinking to myself how it was one of the best national corruption pages I've seen. Squavi (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Yea, political corruption in general is something I am interested in writing on. I have worked on other nations and plan to work on more in the future. Its not an easy task so I appreciate you noticing. Feel free to help out or let me know if there's another page I should check out sooner rather than later. Thanks again! DaltonCastle (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Copy Edit

Can you please explain why you're describing your edits with the words "Copy Edit" when you're deleting whole sentences and paragraphs along with supporting sources? Examples [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dr.Fleischman! Apologies for the simplified edit histories. I generally get in the habit of cranking them out without thinking much about it. I can try to be better about this. That said, its generally (at least for me) simpler to keep discussions directly on an article's talk page. I took notice of these pages and noticed that the sourcing being used is often not from accepted reliable sources, or giving undue weight. Perhaps 'Copy Edit' is not the proper term. But I have been using it for quite some time to describe any edits that improve the accuracy of an article. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely not the appropriate term, and it might actually be seen as deceptive by some editors. I'd suggest something more descriptive such as "removed sentence about <such-and-such> per <policy/guideline>." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hm, ok. Well apologies for any confusion. I certainly was not intentionally deceiving anyone. I guess I've just come across countless instances of users stating "copy edit" as a general term for their edit summary that I didn't think to notice. Thanks for the heads up! DaltonCastle (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Copy editing generally means editing that improves style and formatting and fixes grammatical, spelling, and editing errors. It usually doesn't involve changing substance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yea I guess I had misinterpreted "accuracy of text". DaltonCastle (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If you are deleting content, or delete a source, please have more to say in your edit summary than "Copy Edit." Please reserve "Copy Edit" for edits that do not substantially change the meaning. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yea we already had this discussion. Thanks though. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is an edit of yours dated 22 May 2015 with an edit summary of "Copy Edit," in which you changed the word "denial" to "scepticism." At least two of your fellow editors have previously brought to your attention that "Copy Edit" is not an appropriate edit summary for edits that change meaning. This might be perceived as misleading by some. Hugh (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this does not build trust. I'd suggest applying the WP:ME standard when deciding whether to describe an edit as a "copy edit." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I believed the nature of this edit was different from the previous edits in which I had been incorrect. Sorry if this is an issue. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed a recent edit of yours, a deletion of content with two references, 429 characters, from Wickr, with an edit summary of "Copy Edit." Do you have any questions regarding our best practice on edit summaries WP:ES that I can help you with? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll be better about this in the future. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit campaign

Over the last 24 hours, you have been sweeping through articles such as Donors Trust, Donors Capital Fund, American Legislative Exchange Council, Americans for Tax Reform, Americans for Prosperity, Castle Rock Foundation, and many others. These articles in general mention many funders, but it seems like your edits focus preferentially on deleting content and reliable source references related to the grant-making activities of Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, while leaving other funding intact. The effect of your recent campaign has been to attempt to dramatically reduce Wikipedia's coverage of Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund provided by volunteer editors.

May I ask that you please demonstrate more restraint in deleting reliable sources. Please respect the effort of your fellow editors in bringing well-formatted, reliable source references to Wikipedia. We are expected to hesitate before deleting references. We are expected to suggest an alternative summarization of a source before deleting a source.
May I also ask with all due respect if you have a relationship of some kind with Donors Trust or Donors Capital Fund or one or more of their grantees? Thank you in advance for your reply. Hugh (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Look, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just saying that it's disconcerting to see someone adding approximately 91 references to the Kochs in the last two months to a variety of pages. I'm all for adding funding sources to these pages, but I think there needs to be some kind of policy to enforce NPOV.

Perhaps we could propose something like 'top three donors' or 'top donor'. Arbitrarily selecting one donor and adding him 91 times sounds to me like political bias. I'm sure if there were a conservative editor in this discussion, he would say something about George Soros.

This might be a discussion that needs to be had elsewhere with admins involved. I'll post this on your talk page too. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your frank assessment of my edit history. You have a great idea: find some organizations that need better coverage of their relationship with George Soros or the Tides Foundation and try adding well-reference informative and interesting article space content until you feel better about things. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the point of what I was trying to say: I am not interested in going through and adding political conspiracy theories about George Soros across Wikipedia. It's not the kind of thing that gets me going, and in my opinion, it would be against the spirit of Wikipedia.

My point is that there should be some consistency across these pages that makes it more difficult for pages to violate NPOV. The fact is, most Wikipedia editors are liberal and male, so making the argument that 'I should be able to add bias to pages because the right-wing editors should be able to do the same thing' doesn't fly.

Is this a policy that has been considered before? If not, I would propose a loose top-three donor rule. It's a completely unbiased way to include donors onto a page without allowing biased editors to cherrypick politically convenient donors. I will also post this on your talk page for convenience. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not weighing in on either side of this content dispute, as I'm ambivalent about the whole thing, but I will note that the subject was discussed at length at Talk:Donors Trust in February and March. Probably inadvertent Dalton, but you stumbled into a bit of a fracas. Your input might be better received if it was in the context of those discussions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Corruption in Venezuela

Hi! I saw that you've been working on information involving corruption in Argentina. I was wondering if you could give corruption in Venezuela a look.--ZiaLater (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely! Thanks for the invite! DaltonCastle (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Primary source

I see you are deleting content and references from Heartland Institute with the edit summary "primary source." Thank you for using edit summaries. Primary sources and self-published sources are usable under certain circumstances. For example, for non-controversial content. You deleted basic facts from the article, including staff size and the IRS filing status of this non-profit, a very basic parameter of the operation of the subject, a fact widely available. I am having trouble interpreting your deletions as improvements. Please help. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015 canvassing warning

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 06:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Will keep note of it in the future! Thanks! DaltonCastle (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleting content and references with edit summary "not notable"

I have noticed spree of deletions of content and references from article space at Americans for Prosperity with an edit summary of "not notable." If you believe the subject of an article is not notable, avenues are available to you such as nominating the article for deletion, but it is inappropriate to delete content from an article for that reason. Alternatively, if you believe specific content in an article has inappropriate coverage with respect to reliable sources, considerations of WP:DUE apply, which see. Thank you Hugh (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I will address on the article's talk page. DaltonCastle (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015 edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Americans for Prosperity shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HughD (talk • contribs) 00:14, 23 May 2015

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. Hugh (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWNTALK, WP:HUSH, and WP:DRC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at User talk:HughD

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at WP:AN3#User:DaltonCastle reported by User:HughD (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hugh (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not an edit war. But Im giving this user the same warning on his talk page. If anyone stops by please review HughD's talk page to take note of if he removes the warning. He has before in an attempt to disguise his involvement when accusing others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HughD#June_2015 DaltonCastle (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you agree with the determination that it is an edit war, please remember to assume good faith in regards to an editor removing warnings from one's talk page. It is entirely possible that he is embarrassed by the warning and doesn't want to leave it on open display. Removing it is both allowed and a sign that it has been read and understood; its removal will not disguise involvement in an edit war to any experienced editor(s). —Darkwind (talk) 15:30, 12 June 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. Hugh (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

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) 03:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

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) 03:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. —Darkwind (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

DaltonCastle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would humbly like to request my unblocking from this 48 hour period. I would like to note that I was not technically engaging in an edit-war on the Americans for Prosperity page as per 3RR. However, as a token of good faith, I can promise to stay of the page for the 48 hour period. I would like to be active elsewhere on Wikipedia and can make productive edits that do not cause any controversy. I am very active in article creation and would currently like to expand a page on Mehmet Baransu. When this period clears up I will take another look at the AFP page and be more cautious and respectful in any editing. I hope this appeal is satisfactory. I will answer any concerns an administrator might have in regards to my unblocking. Thank you for your consideration.

I would also contend that HughD, other users, and I were engaging in WP:BRD. Although we disagreed I believe we were making overall constructive progress on the page. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked per conversations below Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I will just point out that it looks like you may not be aware that you don't have to break 3RR to be considered edit warring. "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Quoted from WP:EW, emphasis in original. Put another way, 3RR is not an open license to revert 3 times. As I noted when I closed the WP:ANEW discussion, no, you didn't break 3RR, but you were definitely edit warring. I will leave your unblock request open to be considered by an uninvolved admin. —Darkwind (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand this point. Although I do believe my edits to be justified as per WP:BOLD and my removal of POV content from the page. However I can promise to avoid arguing my case on that page for 48 hours. I can be useful elsewhere in the meantime. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe in second chances and I'm happy to unblock you on the proviso that if you edit war on Americans for Prosperity again, the next block will be indefinite. I'll ping @Darkwind: as blocking admin to check he's comfortable with that. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: No objection. —Darkwind (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 June

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 Wickr 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) 00:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Jorge Capitanich

On 19 June 2015, you revered my addition of a link to Chief of the Cabinet of Ministers in the Jorge Capitanich article, saying reverting edits by confirmed account abuser and POV pusher. Did you have me confused with someone else? I have been editing Wikipedia since 28 December 2005, and have made over 44,378 edits. Back in 2007 someone did confused me with User:Beh-nam. Although rare, I have been accused of being a POV pusher, notably by sock-puppets of disgruntled banned users, (See e.g. here); I have no knowledge of any Wikipedia administrative action that would have "confirmed" such status, nor does my record reflect such status. Please check my record. After which, you might want to consider restoring, in the Jorge Capitanich article, the useful link in the lead regarding his former employment. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I should note that in at least one case the editor who made such an accusation admitted his error and apologized, here. --Bejnar (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@User:Bejnar I apologize for this. I was not referring to you. There was another user who was a confirmed account abuser and POV pusher that had attempted to make changes on the page. So I reverted to a version before this user had made their disruptive edits. It was an edit summary error. Just to clarify I was not, and am not, accusing you of anything. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

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) 18:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/ Mehmet Baransu at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

An admin shot it down some time ago. Is it still up for debate? DaltonCastle (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yea I actually had wanted to post something so I combined it there on your post. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Rating for Herbert Mason

Greetings. Thank you for your time to reassess the article. If there is anything that could be done to bring the article from a C to a B please let me know. Once again thank you. HerbertGP36 (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey no problem at all! Ill comment on the page directly about C to B class. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Before you comment on the talk page of the article please have another look; I've added more information ever since you rated it. Feel free to give as much advice as possible. HerbertGP36 (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Administrator advice

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Greetings!

I was wondering if an administration could point me in the right direction. I am requesting the restoration of an old version of an article, or a discussion of such a change. At Americans for Prosperity there has been a long series of debate over the page. However, at some point there was a majority consensus reached. Sure, the page was not perfect, but a user came in and undid all the changes on the page. At the time no one wanted to revert this edit at all due to the 1RR restrictions on the page and the warnings from administrators to not edit-war. So it was allowed to stay despite the previous consensus and since then several editors have made more minor edits to the page. I am effectively requesting this version be restored: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity&oldid=669806083. Although the resulting page will not be perfect and will result in additional editing and talk page discussion, it will be better than it is now and be more in line with talk page consensus. Thank you for your consideration.

DaltonCastle (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Although I don't think this is an issue for a help template (it is much better suited for the article's talk page), because you've requested advice from an administrator I've changed the {{help me}} template to an {{admin help}} template, as a matter of proper categorization/notification. Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 03:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

As NickW557, this is more suitable for discussion on the article talk page. Administrators have no more authority to decide issues of article content than any other editors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok thank you for looking into this. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Aden Chambers

Aside from Romantic Touch, Silas Young and Takaaki Watanabe, I was wondering if you recalled the names of other notable wrestlers DC has defeated at RoH, trying to compile a list to establish notability in his article. Ranze (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ranze: Oh LOL! It is actually just a coincidence that this is my username. I have never actually heard of that Dalton Castle before today. Nonetheless, I'd be happy to search for any relevant details. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of AceVPN

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on AceVPN requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Savonneux (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Chicago-style politics (meme) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chicago-style politics (meme) 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/Chicago-style politics (meme) 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. I'm notifying you because you had an opinion regarding the similar Chicago-style politics page. It seems the new page is redundant at best.Springee (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Curious

Your name based on Dalton Castle or Dalton Castle (wrestler) perhaps? 64.228.91.102 (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Actually no, it is not based on either. Its just a coincidence that this is my name. Although this is not the first time someone has noticed this. I had not heard about the wrestler until someone asked me to edit the page. I've known about the castle for some years and always wanted to visit, but have yet to. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

B Class checklist

Hi. Any chance you could add a B Class checklist to the WikiProject Biography of Herbert Mason to show what meets and doesn't meet the criteria of a B Class. Thank you. HerbertGP36 (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again! Ill answer on the article's talk page. Article already looks significantly improved! DaltonCastle (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! HerbertGP36 (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

When you say introductory paragraphs do you mean the paragraphs before "Early Life"? HerbertGP36 (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@HerbertGP36: Yes. Above the "Early life" section. What is commonly referred to as the "Lead" DaltonCastle (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Anything else you wanted me to look at? I've been busy lately and would like to help you more before I possibly get into more edit drama. Did you like my edits with the flags on the corruption articles?--ZiaLater (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Everything looks great! Good work as per usual! I think for corruption pages this is a good standard to have now.

In regards to the Equatorial Guinea page, thank you for the changes! That new section I believe really improves the page. Thanks again! ;) Let me know if you need any help on other pages. DaltonCastle (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing you can really help with right now, just stuck in the usual Venezuela mess. I would've helped more with the Equatorial Guinea page more but it looks like it's been covered pretty thoroughly.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I have answered this at the noticeboard. Hopefully my response there will put this issue to bed. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)