User talk:Ss 051

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm AdventurousSquirrel. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Olde English Bulldogge without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome (sorry, very belated!)[edit]

Hello Ss 051, I'm sorry to see that although you've been editing for a while now, nobody has yet dropped by to welcome you! So please enjoy these cookies!

I can see you have been editing the Olde English Bulldogge article and thank you for using the talk page to discuss changes as this is always very helpful and an excellent way of communicating. You will have noticed I have just added some standard 'hidden text' which we use in a lot of dog breed articles in an attempt to avoid a long list of clubs (and private breeders - thanks for removing the breeder EL, by the way as I hadn't noticed it). It's better to use DMOZ for club links rather then external links, especially as the OEBKC is already linked as a reference.

Here are links to some pages that I hope you might find helpful:

Although it's not a problem at the moment, please also bear in mind WP:COI and WP:SPA.

If I can help at all, please feel free to contact me on talk page, or you will always find helpful editors at The Teahouse. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

What happened with the OEB pictures? They are gone. Hafspajen (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a notice at your Commons account of one of them being deleted but I am not a Commons admin so can't see whether that was what happened to the others. However, I don't see any file uploads in your history here on en:wikipedia, deleted or not, so my suspicion is that that's where the problem lies. The Commons template refers to lack of permission. Can you upload them again with appropriate permission, if necessary via e-mail to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org)? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think those were so called Own works, I think. So if you, Ss, took those pictures, than you are the author, and nobody can mess with you. Just say Own work, if this is the case. Hafspajen (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it was a permission's issue, in that I didn't have proof of the picture-takers permission to upload along with photo. I've emailed to get that permission and should have it to appeal the deletion soon. In the mean time I'm going to replace the puppy picture with one of my own showing an older dog (mine).Ss 051 (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Have more of those? Go ahead and upload those! Hafspajen (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've got a couple that would work, but I'm getting permission for the others to show some diversity. The 8 year old dog shown is actually a daughter to the female up top in the block.Ss 051 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WEll, do that. It is much less complicated when the pictures are your own pictures. In that case it is you who are the author. And in any case it is better than empty files. Hafspajen (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Well done, that looks reallllllllllllllllly good. Hafspajen (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Leavitt Bulldog, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thought I did... The issue however is that the information on that page is blatantly false propaganda. I'll track down some online references that will prove it, an interview with David Leavitt actually, but I doubt the person modifying the Leavitt Bulldog page will care. Not sure if you have any suggestions on how to resolve this type of issue?Ss 051 (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. Please do not go on edit warring, because you will be blockeed, you and all the rest of the accounts you will start after this block. Hafspajen (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, but I've attempted to do just as you said. I've left references on the Talk page showing that the text the other person keeps reverting is false. I've even tried to refer them over to the Talk page in the desciption of my edits and asked for them to provide similar references for the version of the text they place, but it hasn't done any good. Seeing as I have provided references for the version of text I am proposing, what would you suggest I do here?Ss 051 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I don't know about the whole thing but you need urgently to fill in on the WP:dispute resolution, right now, urgently, immediately or you get yourself blocked, please do so!!! You have all the chanses to be blocked right now, you broke three revert rule big time. I reverted you because you NEED TO DISCUSS this.... Hafspajen (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you better try WP:dispute resolution instead of 3rd Opinion. Those guys are better at this. Hafspajen (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Now it might be possible to find a solution...

Hafspajen (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that people have jobs, so wikipedia discussions can only be constructive if conducted fairly slowly. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, but that hasn't stopped the other editor from going in and undoing my changes within an hour of making them. I've been dealing with this for 8 years now and trying to stay impartial, sorry. The LBA was arguing back in 2006 that they were not changing the breed, and the OEBKC was claiming they were/would. Now it seems the roles have swapped, though I seriously doubt that the other editor has consent from the LBA to be making the statements he has.Ss 051 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that this dicussion is probably the best so far. It is good to have someone who can see things from the outside, and I am a bit disappointed that Feedombulls just left. Hafspajen (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hafspajen. I can't say I'm surprised. What will be interesting will be who winds up editing the Leavitt Bulldog page next and what they add...Ss 051 (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea.

. But I liked Feedombulls, he was nice. Silly of him to just run away. Hafspajen (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can understand why Freedombulls ran away. I've done that on occasion myself when the wiki gets to be too stressful. It will probably be a while after the DR is finished before I'll be able to summon the energy to go though all the page history to see what seems to be the best material or what needs to be reworded. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leavitt Bulldog[edit]

A discussion has begun at Leavitt Bulldog#Notability again which may be of interest to you. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments left Sminthopsis84.Ss 051 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]