User talk:Astro$01

Welcome!

Hello, Astro$01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Introduction

5 The five pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help

Tips

How to write a great article

Manual of Style

Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Kralizec! (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pit Bull

Hey, well done for all your work on Pit Bull, I wonder now whether the Legislation section might be better split off into its own article given how comprehensive it is, leaving a brief overview passage in the main article. As it stands the section has pretty much taken over the article. Mfield (Oi!) 19:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== Dog Deaths List? ==

I notice you compiled a list of victims of dog attacks in the US. Can I ask how this list is relevant to be in Wikipedia? Your justification is that some lists are a part of Wiki. Thats true, but that doesn't mean all lists should be a part of Wiki. You mention that there is a list of Titanic passengers, and I just don't see how that is similar! There are no other lists of people killed in any other kind of accidents. No list of people killed by household items, not lists of people killed by downed powerlines, or anything else. Im going to ask that this list be removed from Wiki. First of all, because it has no encyclopedic value. Also, because it seems to me that this is a private agenda of yours. Now, I have never owned a dog, and I have no feelings on this issue one way or another, but I think Wikipedia is no place for political propaganda. You not only list the deaths, but you also list the names and ages of the people involved. This doesn't help in evaluating the data. It doesn't tell you if the dog was at fault, if the victim was trying to harm the dog, it's owner, or rob a place. It seems more like a way to humanize the victims, make them seem more like people then statistics, and make the accident more tragic. Wikipedia is not the place for you to court public opinion. I think its wrong. If you feel I am in error, and you had a use for this list that has nothing to do with legislative hopes, then let me know. Otherwise I will request that the article be removed on the basis that it is not information found in an encyclopedia, and that it is there for a political agenda. Hey, for all I know, more people are saved by dogs then killed by them. Your list doesn't really tell me if we are safer having them around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipopfop (talk • contribs) 08:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article to which you refer, List of people killed by dogs in the United States, is merely an informational list, not a complete article, and does not express a POV. As they say, "Dog bites man is not news; dog kills man is news", and is an important part of the expansion of information about dogs breeds under the Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Dogs effort. As it happens, only one of the people listed as being killed was believed involved in criminal trespass: "John Doe", age unknown, who was killed in 2006 in Los Angeles, CA. Astro$01 (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment splitting

Please don't split my comments apart like you did in this edit. It really breaks up the flow of the discussion and makes it hard to follow. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pit Bull Reassessment

Hi there,

Just noticed you've asked for a reassessment of the Pit Bull article on WPDOGS. I presume you're working on it to get it uprated, well it's already B rated, so the only way to get it uprated now is to nominate it for GA status through that way. Further information can be found at the Good article nominations page. If it fails its initial nomination, the person reviewing it should give you a list of points to improve the article on to make it up to GA and a timeframe in which to do them. Once it's done it'll be uprated.

Good luck!

Miyagawa (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pit Bull GA Nomination

Hey there,

Just noticed that you added Pit Bull to the the Nominated GA section on the WPDOGS portal. That section is really only for reference for WPDOGS members and isn't the actual way to nominate an article for GA assessment.

Go to Wikipedia:Good article nominations and follow the steps there in order to nominate an article for GA. The correct section for most WPDOGS articles is Natural Sciences/Biology and medicine.

Good luck with the nomination and if there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. Miyagawa (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! Ignore that message - the articles alert section hasn't updated with your nomination and I never thought to check the actual list. :) Miyagawa (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just worked out why the articles alert section didn't update - the GA nomination wasn't tagged on the Pit Bull article's talk page. I've now added the tag under your name (as the nominator). Regards Miyagawa (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Pit Bull

The article Pit Bull you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Pit Bull for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. SnottyWong talk 14:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page discussion notice

Hello. There is a discussion regarding a content issue with which you may be involved at Talk:List of people killed by dogs in the United States. You are probably watchlisting the page and are already aware of this, but I thought I'd inform you anyways through this channel. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pit Bull at GAN

Hi Astro$01,

I've begun a review of your Pit Bull Good Article nomination here. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've been offline since the 18th. Hopefully, you'll be back on WP soon, as I'm concerned about the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

It appears that you're in an edit war over a content dispute at List of people killed by dogs in the United States. This does not appear to be a vandalism issue, so you are in the process of breaching reversion rules (3RR). Please stop or you will be blocked from editing. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for being a bit blunt - You were right about the WP:RS (Though the reverts were getting a little messy). Keep up the good work. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happened during this edit war was a disaster for Wikipedia. Anonymous posters with an agenda finally overwhelmed Astro$01, and expunged valid, reliable information from Wikipedia. Astro$01 acted heroically, defending wikipedia (and the truth) for 10 months.Woodlandpath (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of people killed by dogs in the United States

I have nominated List of people killed by dogs in the United States, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people killed by dogs in the United States. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Dodo bird (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Astro$01 (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your creation of, contributions to, and defense of the article List of fatal dog attacks in the United States! Chrisrus (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Pit Bull revert doesn't make sense to me

I was surprised to see my contribution to 'Pit bull' reverted and would like to know more about your reasoning. Your edit history on this page suggests your own POV may be unduely influencing your reverts. I've replaced 'over-reporting and misreporting' with 'widespread reporting'. I'm happy to discuss any issues you might have with the rest of the copy. Dognerd (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darla Napora Deleted

Someone (using only an IP) went to the trouble of adding Darla Napora to the list of those killed. I believe all the summaries also were updated and were correct on August 13th. Then there was a reversion to a version that predated the addition of Darla Napora, and her name and the references were consequently dropped. I realize there is an editing war in progress, but it seems a shame to literally throw out the baby with the bathwater.Andante$46 (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Andante$46[reply]