User talk:Astro69

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Sandahl (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
The recent edit you made to List of people killed by dogs in the United States constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The NCRC citation was removed by Astro1 claiming the material was self-published (it is not). However, the Clifton study which is very clearly self-published should be removed using the same criteria. Astro1 insists on re-posting despite it violates the very criteria that he cited as the reason to delete the NCRC data. It is an undisputable fact that Merritt Clifton owns and publishes his own magazine in which this "study" is published. Furthurmore, unlike the NCRC (which has an advisory board comprised of some of the most repsected canine professionals in the country) - Mr. Clifton and his Animal People Magazine are not canine professionals nor does he have any credentials in canine behavior. Astro69 (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

__NOINDEX__ Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

List of people killed by dogs in the United States
Astro1 removed the National Canine Research Council's (NCRC) information on this page claiming the material was self-published (it is not). For this reason I have deleted the Clifton study-- which is very clearly self-published.

Astro1 insists on re-posting the Clifton study despite the fact that it violates the very criteria that he cited as the reason to delete the NCRC data. It is an undisputable fact that Merritt Clifton owns and publishes his own magazine in which this "study" is published. A cursory review of the magazine shows Clifton as the publisher and his wife as co-publisher.

Furthurmore, unlike the NCRC (which has an advisory board comprised of some of the most repsected canine professionals in the country) - Mr. Clifton and his Animal People Magazine are not canine professionals nor does he have any credentials in canine behavior.

At this point it is clear that Astro1 has an agenda in removing NCRC material, while keeping Clifton's material.

Astro69 (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Astro69" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astro69 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * After having another look at the situation i noticed that there was a SSP case related to this page. Having read trough that i notice that:
 * Your account was just 3 minutes old before you edited the page in question, entering the same debate as Record44
 * Your edits are identical to Record44's
 * Your username is incredibly similar to Astro$01.
 * Counting this all together i would say that it is pretty clear that you are Record44 / Beinsh. Using multiple accounts is not allowed, especially not if this is used to evade a block. As of such i blocked your account and I would urge to stop creating more accounts. You can request an unblock on your main account, but seeing that you created another sockpuppet i would advice waiting at least a month (Without additional sockpuppets) before doing so. I would again warn that creating further accounts will just result in summary reverts and blocks. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)