This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ExplodingCabbage (talk | contribs) at 10:53, 23 June 2024 (→Reverted edits to List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:53, 23 June 2024 by ExplodingCabbage (talk | contribs) (→Reverted edits to List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
Status: (Around)
My very best friend
Buddy's best friend
FlightTime Phone ( talk · contribs · count · uploads · logs · rights)
FlightTime Public ( talk · contribs · count · uploads · logs · rights)
Topic Subscriptions
{{ping|FlightTime}} with your message. Thank you 
 | If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please Click Here and let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. To keep discussions coherent, I will usually answer in the talk page where the first message was placed. If I left you a message on another talk page, please answer there: I will have it on my watch list. Thank you. |  |
No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online |
| Alternate talk page | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Welcome To My Alternate Talk Page FlightTime ( talk · contribs · count · accounts · move log · global rename log · uploads · logs · rights) Click here to leave a new messageIf you're here, then my main talk page is protected. I do occasionally check this page, but to be sure I'm aware of your post please include {{ping|FlightTime}} with your message. Thank you FlightTime
 It is 7:37 PM where this user lives in the Mojave Desert.
|
| Welcome to my talk page.
Archives Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
 | This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 14 days may be automatically moved. Threads with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived. |
Reverted edits to List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom
Your edit summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1230463057 claims that my edits you were reverting consisted of "Unsourced date changesand other apparetly OR FROM A DISRUPTIVE USER". Not only is this false, but every edit you reverted consisted of me implementing changes proposed by others on the article's Talk page. In addition, you've reintroduced material sourced solely from the Daily Mail, which just seems crazily counterproductive given that the thing our beef started over was your objection to Daily Mail citations in that article.
Going one reverted edit at a time:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1230388447 - eliminates a Daily Mail citation and replaces it with a non-deprecated source. Note the linked Talk page discussion in which I observe that, although some entire paragraphs of the Mirror article appear to be close paraphrases of paragraphs from the Daily Mail article, which had initially led me to dismiss it as merely plagiarised from the Mail, there are also inquest quotes in the Mirror article that are not included in the Mail article - so clearly it is at least not purely plagiarised from the Mail. (Perhaps it isn't at all and both papers just close-paraphrased content from the same press release.)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1230390472 replaces a Daily Mail article citation with a citation of a BBC News article that provides a similar (but not identical) account of the facts about how the dog was kept and treated and the mental impact of those conditions. It also rewrites the section about the dog's conditions to reflect the account in the new source rather than the Daily Mail, and then - because that makes those sentences a bit longer - splits the section into two paragraphs and tightens up the prose a bit. Note that removing facts that were only sourced from the Daily Mail was the unanimous consensus of users who discussed what to do about the Daily Mail citations on the article's Talk page, and these two edits implemented that consensus.
The next three edits begin to implement @Wikigrund's proposal on the Talk page to include both the date of attack and victim's date of death (where distinct) in the Date column and to mark the date of death with a dagger symbol, following precedent at https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks#Fatalities_in_France. All of the dates added are corroborated by already-cited sources:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=1230417203 adds Damian Holden's date of death as 21 September 2009, as stated in https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/92337/html/, https://www.knutsfordguardian.co.uk/news/9031890.Father_died_after_very_rare_reaction_to_dog_bite/, and https://www.crewechronicle.co.uk/news/local-news/holmes-chapel-man-died-infection-5608636, all three of which were already cited.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=next&oldid=1230417203 adds William George's date of attack as 9th October. This is the only one where citations are kind of weak (and I'll add more), but even here the date nonetheless is corroborated by cited sources. The cited Mirror article states that he died on 16th October "a week" after the incident, and the RSPCA source at https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/92337/html/ which is cited elsewhere on the page specifically lists the attack date as 9th October.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=next&oldid=1230417490 adds Derek Luckie's date of death, which is not only again corroborated by already-cited sources but was literally already stated in the "Circumstances" field of the same table row in the article.
Since nothing here is OR or unsourced, I'm going to revert your revert. If you see a problem I'm missing, please explain what your issue is either here on the article Talk page instead of just making vague accusations in the edit summary.
I find it incredibly frustrating to have to spend an hour meticulously justifying my edit here just to avoid an unwarranted reversion of it. Minimally inspecting the cited sources for each of the modified table rows would've revealed to you that every single factual detail I added was specifically corroborated by a cited source. Glancing at the Talk page - which only has 9 sections, two of which can be immediately seen to be relevant to these edits based on their titles - would've immediately revealed that the edits I was making were implementing the suggestions of other editors. But instead of taking a few minutes to check whether anything you were accusing me of was true, you just reverted my edits and chucked a false accusation into the summary. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, and one other thing - the classification of your revert as a "minor edit" was obviously inappropriate here. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)