User talk:DaltonCastle

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)

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)

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.

Template:Z33 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.

Template:Z33 Hugh (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)