User talk:DaltonCastle

Khodorkovsy and reverts

Please do not make mass reverts of limited and justified changes and mark them as "minor", especially without even explaining why you are doing it as you did the first time, as if you were simply repairing IP vandalism. It's rude and unconstructive. I have restored my changes, some of which were grammatical improvements, but restored some of the info you insist must be there, but which WP:OPENPARA probably would not. I have also opened a talk page section. N-HH talk/edits 08:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

U.N. me

Could you take a look at this article? I'd appreciate your input. Activist (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing! I'll take a look now! DaltonCastle (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I had also thanked Ken through the button for his helpful change.. Glad we could work it out. Activist (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Good Faith Edit at Oath Keepers

Hiya,

just wanted to drop you a note regarding your reversion. A couple things you might not have known:

• 1 - the page is under heavy sockpuppet attack that resumes within days of its semiprotection expiring, repeatedly. See SPI regarding the latest sleeper account for more details.

• 2 - the wording you removed is (a) sourced, VERY specifically to cite the word radical,and (b) was hashed out on the talk page some time ago.

If you think it should be removed, you're welcome to create a new section on the talk page to re-hash it, but you should be aware that wording is sourced to multiple Verifiable and Reliable Sources. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

ah ha! I was not aware of such sock puppetry. I will review the history of the article and any relevant sources about the group. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem. I figured based on your editing history that you were patrolling recent changes in good faith, but just didn't quite look closely enough at the page history. I made a point to leave a note that you were NOT considered part of the SPI case on the SPI page as well, just to make sure that nothing spills over on you. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! No worries, I can even keep an eye out for any sock-puppetry too. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Weingarten & standardized testing

I've laid out my issues with the section as currently published here, FWIW. —GGreeneVa (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we are all good here now, but if you have any more concerns let me know. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Your reverts of my edits

You've reverted my addition of material to the Koch page, despite it being sourced, with the simple dismissal of "not an improvement." That's your opinion, and I feel it was an improvement, otherwise I wouldn't have made the edit. On the Alternative Right page, you deleted a sourced section with your opinion again, saying "It's just the opinion of some guy" - again, despite the face that it was sourced, and part of the "Criticism" section, where it certainly belongs. I'll be putting those edits back into place. You'll need a better reason to revert them again. Thanks. Rockypedia (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I have provided reasons. If you don't understand them I'd be happy to lay them out in more detail. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Your reasons amount to "That's my opinion and that's that". If you have concrete reasons, you should state them. Rockypedia (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

That is fundamentally not accurate. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Time to stop

You both have had 3RR warnings before. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016

Gain consensus for your suggested changes first, then edit. WP:BRD, WP:EW, etc. etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Uh, no. That's the entire point of WP:BOLD. DaltonCastle (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

When you are reverted - as you have been, twice by different editors, you need to discuss. You didn't - you are starting to edit war. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

By two editors heavily involved on that page. But I am guilty of WP:OWN. Got it. DaltonCastle (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Referendum Statistics

Hi, I am getting the referendum results from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results - the BBC's live updates website. Prtyinthusa (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! DaltonCastle (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk: Donald Trump Presidential Campaign 2016

Greetings, would you please consider weighing in on the first bullet in the Talk discussion on your edits to indicate whether you still believe that content should be removed?CFredkin (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I will see what I can do, but the tendentious editing over there is becoming exhausting. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago

Hello! Your submission of Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 02:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Why did you undo my edits?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg&oldid=731889842

Why did you undo my edits? They were not executed for treason. They were executed for Espionage. That is why I removed it from that category. Did you think it was vandalism?2604:6000:1506:408E:BD49:E978:461E:7A33 (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't apply in all circumstances. Looking further into it, though, fine, I will concede to that point. They were not technically executed for treason, by the strictest definition of "treason". DaltonCastle (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago

On 3 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that before the reversal of Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago in 1965, U.S. states and municipalities could legally censor films? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Times Film Corporation v. City of Chicago), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

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.  Bishonen | talk 02:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC).