User talk:WhiteMako

Excuse me, but I just started this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_article_List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States with regard to your recent edits and those of other users who edit systematically just like you do. I have checked the citations you are attributing these "facts" to and they don't appear to say what you claim they are saying. If you have some other WP:RS that does say this thing, you must use that to cite your claims to fact. You cannot attribute the opposite of what a citation says to that citation. Chrisrus (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

ok, that's a start. Now how about all the rest, and the deletions? And those of your buddy there? Chrisrus (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not have a "buddy," - so you will need to address any other edits to whomever that person is that you have issues with.

A number of my edits do not need new citations, as the original citation was incorrectly cited to begin with; i.e., 2004 Truston Liddle - the breed of dog is never mentioned in that citation, yet, someone wrote "pit bull." Othertimes small details were incorrectly listed that did not correspond with the information in the cited article.

In cases where new information superceded information found in old citations on this page, I will replace those references with updated ones.

Here you go

Here's a more detailed report that seems to postdate the one you are using: | http://thesouthern.com/news/article_c1446234-7b27-5c39-a49a-ff47abc93b2f.html. Chrisrus (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If the media reports conflicting "breeds" or dogs, or mixes thereof, clearly we are safer saying the dogs are mixed breed, than assigning an arbitary breed depending on which newspaper one is reading - Otherwise we will be editing, re-editing and undoing each other's citations ad naseum.

The short first one said "mixed breed"s. The longer local which post-dated it said "Two pitbull mixes and a collie mix". There is no conflict between the two. The later one is simply being more specific about exactly what kind of mixed breeds were involved. Chrisrus (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not true. There were dozens of stories on this case, some said mixed breed, some guessed at the breed by saying "pit bull MIXES and Collie MIX" - which really means the dog WAS a mixed breed, and they think it was a "pit bull or collie mix" - Unfortunately, most of the articles are no longer available on-line, so you and I have only a small number left to pick from when citing references. The article you picked is not being "more specific" they are being less correct in guessing what "breed," while other media sources were more careful in not attempting to assign a breed when clearly the dogs were mixes.

In cases where new information superceded information found in old citations, we replace those references with updated ones. We do this even if the pit bull is not exonerated. We consider the citations we have, not ones some Wikipedian claims to have seen but cannot provide. Chrisrus (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

WhiteMako's pitbulls

So, you're a fan, I take it, of the breed? A lovely dog, aren't they? Terrible how some owners mistreatment of them sometimes causes so few of them to maim and kill; but if treated with lots of love and affection, they'd never do any such thing, right? Chrisrus (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? That's your response? That's tells me alot about your edits. I'm talking about facts and conflicting media reports and your sarcastic remarks are not appropriate. But thanks for letting me know your POV. WhiteMako (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not my response. I replied in the section above, scroll up and see. We're still waiting for your reply on that topic. Then I started this new section to bring up a new topic. I'm still waiting for your reply on the above topic in the section above. I created this section to test a theory of mine about you. My theory is; you love pitbulls. Alot. I was also interested if you'd seize this opportunity to avoid replying to the thread in the section above. Chrisrus (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I did read your previous response and there was no need to repeat my previous comment - but I will do it again to appease you: The media printed conflicting breed attributions - therefore- the best and most accurate thing to do is call the dog a mixed breed in light that neither article can be proven right or wrong. And please don't insult my intelligence by saying you obvious POV comments were to "test me." Your new "theory explanation" cannot change the fact that you very clearly identified your POV and bias on the topic and are making a feeble attempt to turn it into a case of my bias. WhiteMako (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)