The Original Barnstar
		Hi Castlemate! I wish to award you this barnstar for your recent work on Frank Tidswell and your contributions to Wikipedia as a whole, which have not gone unnoticed. benzband (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Benzband's talk page.

(^___^) benzband (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the great work you did in bringing the Eryldene page up to snuff. It's now a work of art in that reads so well with no ambiguity.

I notice that you also created the Shorters page. When we worked in town in the late 70s and early 80s my late wife and I spent 100s of dollars there. Such a gem in the heart of Sydney and such wonderful people. When it did it close down?

Message me if you ever need support to combat the deletionistas. Silent Billy (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have reverted your change to the reference in the Shorters article as the original was correct - it was the John Slater Collection. I'm sorry but I don't know when Shorters ceased trading as a retailer. Hopefully some one who does will add this detail to the article. Castlemate (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Castlemate! Thank you for your contributions.

If you would be interested in joining a group of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, please take a look at the Military history WikiProject—we would be delighted to have you! If you like what you see, please sign your name here, and a project coordinator will soon be along with a formal welcome. Regards, Anotherclown (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating John Egan Moulton, Castlemate!

Wikipedia editor CaroleHenson just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great job!

To reply, leave a comment on CaroleHenson's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

For your information, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive217#Warwick moss. --220 of ^Borg 10:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review of my wikipedia account Benjamin Genocchio. i have noticed today the same people who also negatively changed my wife's account are back editing my entry. i haven no idea why. they have however nested another factual error. would you mind reviewing it please. i have put some material on the talk page which i would be grateful if somebody could also review. thanks Apologies for the bother, Benjamin Genocchio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgenocchio (talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that; I know lots of these MLCs have ADB entries but my focus is on creating the articles at the moment. Having said that, I know the NSW Parliament site is not always 100% reliable so I'm very grateful for anyone who checks some of these facts in other sources. :) Frickeg (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Catmando999 Barnstar
		Thank you for your edits to Charles Herbert Locke.

Category:Town halls in Sydney, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It took a while but I'm glad we got there in the end: Peter Crawley (headmaster). Jenks24 (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your hard work. The question now is what to do with it. Castlemate (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bob Howard (academic) 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/Bob Howard (academic) 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. -- Longhair\^talk 02:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Scott Fletcher 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/Michael Scott Fletcher 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. -- Longhair\^talk 02:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deuchar Gordon 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/Deuchar Gordon 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. -- Longhair\^talk 02:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Warwick Cathro 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/Warwick Cathro 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. -- Longhair\^talk 02:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that biographical articles that are not welcome here at Wikipedia are welcome at Familypedia, and they only need to be cut and pasted with minor markup of the links from Wikipedia. Images are directly linked from Wikimedia Commons. It doesn't hurt to back them up there, or ask for a copy of the deleted ones so you can move them. --RAN (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that suggestion. Castlemate (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember too much now, but I obviously thought he was notable at the time. It is hard to give more specific comments without having a copy of the article handy: it did seem like the major problem was that the claims in the article weren't referenced and other editors had trouble finding supporting sources. I disagreed, but after a hectic holiday period I can't remember what I found to support that.

Looking at the list on my talk page, the SMH article and the Goggin book aren't bad for coverage (although the Goggin book coverage is brief), and the Hall of Fame page probably passes the bar as well (I can't read The Australian article because of their paywall), but most of the others either aren't what Wikipedia defines as reliable sources or aren't about him per se. I suspect you'll need more sources of at least the standard of the first three that weren't in the article the first time if you were to try and bring it back.

It's fairly hard to save an article once it has been deleted at AfD (much easier to mount an effort while it's happening), but it might be worth making a request at WP:REFUND to have the article recreated in your user space so you/others could work on a new draft that addresses the issues that led people to vote delete last time. If you want to do that, you should make clear that you're asking for it to be put in your user space (not as a live article), otherwise the request might get declined. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reaching out. As TDW says above, it's difficult to say without being able to see the article (although I believe admins don't have this problem so it may be worth asking one of them to look it over). But from what I remember and from looking at the AfD it seems like this one was legitimately close and just had some problems with the sourcing. I pretty much agree with TDW above on the sources you've provided - the SMH article, as I said in the AfD, is pretty good, and the Hall of Fame one is pretty strong too. The Australian article is OK (is there only one? I got the same article twice), the Goggin book is good, the Clear book a bit briefer but still helpful as support. The rest aren't much use for notability purposes - not independent, significant coverage. On the coverage you've provided here I would !vote keep and will happily confirm as such to the closing admin, but I'd concur with TDW that it is a higher bar to clear once the article has already been deleted (not fair, but the way it is), so if you can find one or two more strong sources to strengthen your case that's probably wise - and definitely see if you can get it recreated in user space so that you can present the proposed article too. When you contact the closing admin, you should definitely highlight the fact that you were dealing with a high number of your articles at AfD at once and that wasn't really fair - that will explain for people who aren't familiar why it wasn't practical for you to necessarily unearth all of these at the time. Frickeg (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few things that might help, although it looks like most might require a trip to the library: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5][6] [7]. There's also these, in which Bagshaw is referenced somewhere in the body that I can't access, which might have something: [8] [9][10][11][12]. He does seem to be quite a prominent voice on the conservative side of disability funding, and perhaps that didn't come across in the original as much as it could have. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ned Goodwin 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/Ned Goodwin 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. DGG ( talk ) 07:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Castlemate! Thanks for your interest in Crocker, for whom I've just started an article in my userspace (feel free to edit). A previous editor had put 1929 and "deceased" alongside her name, neither of which being necessarily true, let alone referenced. She appeared in a multiplicity of eisteddfods, and from the age categories for which she was entered, 1930 would be more likely. From her memoir her parents married in 1927 and she came two years later, which means definitely no later than 1930. However she and Ruth Cracknell sailed to London in 1952, at age 21. (Radio Days p. 116) Do you have any sources that might shed some light? Doug butler (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article now public. Doug butler (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filling in all those blank spaces. You may have my copy of Radio Days to keep/return/pass on/donate. I doubt I'll open it again. Click on "Email this user" my talk page. Doug butler (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Castlemate, in response to your article on Patti Crocker unfortunately i don't know much on her, the article that was created on her however states that most of the information was sourced from the book publication PATTI CROCKER: RADIO DAYS, so maybe that's worth tracking down a copy at your local library, as for the previous, the previous dates however are correct as i was the editor, that stated the birth year as 1929, this WAS SOURCED from website "Trove", however no actually date is given, just the year, the fact she had unfortunately passed away, which now has stated on her Wikipedia article as 15 March, 1992, was something i didn't know, but only that she had passed because it was mentioned in the book publication Number 96 in which she starred as Eileen Chester, in the tribute section, that list former actors/actresses from that series that have passed away — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.35.147 (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to let you know that the issues you raised with me should be resolved for now as the editor has been blocked as a sock puppet. --Find bruce (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An IP claiming to be you is trying to get access to your account at Wikipedia:Help desk#Help! If it is not you then please say so there. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jonathan Gilbert (diplomat), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gilbert (diplomat) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]