User talk:PBurns3711

Terrierman site

I see it now. I reverted myself and fixed it back. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Working terriers

Rather than engaging in a revert war, I have started a discussion about the disputed edit on the talk:working terrier page. Perhaps we could discuss it there? MikeHobday 07:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on January 5 2007 to Working terrier

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 10:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility

In regard to your uncivil comments on my talk page, I am advising you to no longer contact me. As per your request for a reference, to support the use of breed name Old English Terrier I will get them for the article tomorrow, as I am busy right now. Bye! Headphonos 16:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility again

Similarly, your comments at [2], and particularly at [3] albeit modified by [4], [5] albeit modified by [6], [7] modified by [8], [9] and [10] are abusive and are breaches of Wikipedia policies on Wikipedia:Civility and assuming good faith. Please do not repeat this. MikeHobday 08:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability -- Headphonos cannot support his claims

Headphonos was engaged in a "revert war" on the English White Terrier page, in which he was using the wrong name for the dog and substituting plagiarized text (posted without attribution). Headphonos was asked to back up his assertion that the English White Terrier (known by that name to all cynologists) was the same as the "Old English Terrier" which, I contend, is shorthand for an entirely different kind of dog. Headphonos' was asked to come up with a citation from anyone alive during the first 50 or 60 years of the early Kennel Club (say 1860-1920). Conversely, he could provided evidence from anyone in the working terrier community (which is not to say the fighting dog community, but the hunting-with-terriers) community. I await whatever evidence he has to offer, but his earlier "evidence" to defend himself against plagiarism of Rawdon Lee's text was to say it was no longer copyrighted and was on Wikibooks. I pointed out that his citation was not to Wikibooks, but to a "spam bot" web site that culled text from anywhere on the web in order to sell a dog training book, and that the term "Old English Terrier" could not be found on Wikibooks. Headphonos has, from what I gather, been promoting his breed of American pit bulls and/or bulldogs on Wiki. I suppose this is his chief interest in dogs. -- PB3711

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view -- Hobday is a professional animal rights advocate with an extremist group

Mike Hobday represents the other side of the coin -- not a dog fighting dog man like "Headphonos" apparently is, but a professional Animal Rights avocate who is Director of Public Relations at the "League Against Cruel Sports." Hobday's goal was to pepper the section on working terriers with Animal Rights rhetoric despite the fact that the post on working terriers is about (surprise!) working terriers and not U.K. hunting laws -- which are covered in both the "Hunting Act" post in Wiki and on the "fox hunting" post on Wiki. Hobday has tried to spray Animal Rights rhetoric all through Wikipedia, but has not been entirely successful. Like Headphonos, he tried to engage in a "revert" war to keep his off-topic text in. In my comments to him, I noted that he was asking questions and making assertions that suggest he knew next to nothing about terrier work, which is apparently par for his position in LACS, as his predecessor at LACS had noted here >>> http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/392/80561.html -- PB3711

Apart from not my believing in animal rights and not working for an organisation generally described as extremist, Miles Cooper was never an employee of the League Against Cruel Sports, still less a senior one. Important to get these things right I think. MikeHobday 07:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: No satisfactory citation from Headphonos

He provided one citation from Britannica which supported my contention, one from a bulldog breeder's cite which supported my contention, and another from another "spambot" wen site which showed a picture of a brown and white AKC fox terrier! Actual links on the "discussion" page of English White terrier. - PBurns3711

League Against Cruel Sports

Hi PBurns,

Can you stop overloading the League Against Cruel Sports page with out-of-context and POV links and comments to hunting sites and the likes - it is not relevant to the article and is not NPOV.

All the best,

GrahamGWP 00:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Bones

No, i don't want the article down to the bones at all, infact i started expanding it a couple of weeks ago, just haven't gotten round to continuing that. Will make it a priority.

However you do what you feel you have to do and ultimately, as in the best tradition of wikipedia, the good will out.

In the meantime there's no point in spinning round like a record so i wish you happy submitting :)

Graham GWP 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Expanding

I've begun to expand the League Article and i'm sure that between us, with others, we can produce something really worthwhile.

All the best with your contributing GWP 20:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

LACS

I've moved your submissions to a section entitled 'Criticism of LACS' and edited it for content. GWP 21:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

Great, i'll have a look over it. As far as 'nutter's ball' - if this is the kind of emotional language you are using you should perhaps think carefully before contributing to an encyclopedia which has neutrality as its abiding aim. GWP 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

LACS

The following content is not suitable for an encylopedia -

'she thinks it is quite fine'

- bad grammar

Crosbie's remarks are notable in that they came more than a year after

- why does this make them notable?

All of these acts of assault, terrorism and vandalism received a great deal of publicity

- unnecessarily repetetive therefore POV.

and were part of the "do something" campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences that Crosbie thought so "clever" and spoke approvingly of

- once again poorly written and inappropriate grammar.

And what was the "crime" that Huntingdon Life Sciences was engaged in that deserved this kind of violence, vandalism and terror?

- inappropriate - use of loaded rhetorical question.

And NPOV is also important when leaving comments on talkpages - left on mine

"In fact, it is very common for extremist groups (LACS is certainly that) and hate groups (LACS may or may not be that -- opinions differ)"

- LACS is not an extremist group.

Now I am fully aware of the guidelines on personal remarks to users however the occasion importunes me to say that you seem to be of a rather limited intelligence and possibly not in the best position to contribue to wikipedia.

Of course after you have attended courses in basic English grammar and educated yourself somewhat, this situation may change.

All the best, GWP 14:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

LACS

Ok, i'm going to leave it for now, no point in edit war.

But i'll be back. You won't win this one because you are wrong and also, judging by your submissions, lacking in intelligence.

GWP 15:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[11] made on January 9 2007 to League Against Cruel Sports

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

Please mark your reverts as such and use edit comments appropriately. And don't edit war.

William M. Connolley 20:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Campaigning and soliciting outside Wikipedia

Hi PBurns, it's been brought to my attention that somebody under your name, probably you, posted this [12] on an external website in order to influence a dispute at League Against Cruel Sports. Such external campaigning is considered highly disruptive and illegitimate on Wikipedia. Please read WP:SOCK, especially the section on "Meatpuppets". I would earnestly ask you to take down that post from your website. Should any actual disruption occur on the article, with new "meatpuppet" accounts coming in to revert-war on your behalf, I am informing you that their behaviour may be imputed to you. This includes counting their reverts against you in terms of the WP:3RR. Thus you might end up blocked for disruption and revert-warring together with them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Working terrier

Please do not remove text from pages, as you did to this one, without discussion with other editors who are working on it, no matter how much the text runs contrary to your prejudices or views. Grace Note 03:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that you have now reverted this article three times in 24 hours. WP:3RR suggests that a fourth revert would be inappropriate. can we discuss the issue on the talk page? MikeHobday 13:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jack Russell Terrier Club of America

The article Jack Russell Terrier Club of America has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG, whilst passing mentions of the club can be found in a number of news articles and books there is insufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV (“addresses the topic directly and in detail”).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cavalryman (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

What is 'quarry' here?

Hi PBurns3711. Would like to add a wikilink, but don't see what this word means. Please advise. Thank you. --Gryllida (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Plummer Terrier

The article Plummer Terrier has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only one citation which fails WP:RS, fails breed notability and general notability, content belongs on Brian Plummer but without any citations there's no reason to merge anything

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)