User talk:Frikkers

Boerboel
Quadell I had to remove your picture of the Bitch, in my opinion the other picture is much nicer, not a personal issue, but the one you are using is not a very well put together Boerboel. The hind is far to weak, not enough second thigh or muscle in general going on there, same with the top line and neck. Also the picture is a bit bleached giving the dog a rather insipid look. Possibly the dog in question is in fact a good one, but the picture is not. The picture should try and represent as good an example as possible, to give the public a better overall view and understanding about what the breed should represent. I think the one used already does this nicely. Perhaps you have another bitch photo you wish to put in there instead?

I am not getting embroiled in the AKC issue as it has no bearing on the Boerboel as yet, as 99% of Boerboel owners in America have decided not to register their dogs there. Wikipedia is not meant to be used as free advertising or promotion. If you wish to mention that there is some kind of very minimally used development register for the breed at the AKC, you can do so some place under the AKC Wikipedia entry perhaps.

Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional material about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or contributions created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with Wikipedias deletion policies. For more information, see Spam.

Kind regards Frikkers

FayssalF
I am finding this whole Wikipedia exercise one big sham. If wikipedi is to be at all credible then people who try and lay down the law as to what, who and when an edit can take place, should actually have a firm understanding of the subject involved, otherwise it becomes no more than a subjective and irrational little game. Van tucky has repeatedly vandalised the Boerboel entry from start with block edits that are very time consuming to change and it seems is not being held accountable at all. With due respect for anyone who is seriously motivated to trying to make wikipedia a credible source of information, this is unacceptable.

Do we as guardians or custodians of information, or in this instance a living breed of dog have a choice in the matter? If I could I would request the entry be removed entirely, as miss information is worse than none at all. Or are we to entirely discredit Wikipedia as a source of credible information, because that is what the end result of this little edit war ends up being, as I am sure now, many others must end up being too.

From the very beginning of the Boerboel entry a very small group of editors no more than two have miss represented the breed entirely at their own whims, and worse because of personal agendas involving the AKC or American Kennel club, this level of subjectivity and mistaken patriotism proffered as encyclopaedic content is damaging wikipedias image as a whole, and proper information about this particulr breed of dog of concern to myself and many other contributors. This is not the place supposedly for personal agendas and bias, but worse it is not the place for contributors with no particular knowledge of a given subject to vandalise entries, to draw any conclusions, or try and limit other editors contributions. Do I hear a clamouring for administrative know how?

Perhaps the entire concept of Wikipedia is so flawed, and I should not be wasting my time further. I had thought not, but real experience here has taught me that perhaps it is time for a rethink on the concept, it is simply too easily abused, in fact leaving all its content in serious doubt. While I know that it is not a source of information that is eligible in any academic sense yet, it remains a worthy excersise to try and achieve such recognition, does it not?

Frikkers — added by Frikkers (talk • contribs) 03:39, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
 * Hi Frikkers. If you had read my note carefully you'd have noted that i asked you to discuss. I indeed have no knowledge about the breed of dog. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  02:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fayssalf, problem is some other editors change vast blocks of info and remove pictures etc, and are not administrators but still own up to knowing nothing about the subject matter, but still gain support for their actions? As they know nothing about the breed and are not afraid to say such, Van tucky an example, there is very little I or anyone else who does know about the breed or even dogs in general can discuss with them. Any suggestions? all that is left is to re-write the whole thing piece by piece and still have it block edited by uninformed contributors, until a stale mate of misinformation is reached, at which point one wonders what the point is in Wikipedia at all?

Boerboel
Samir i applaud your efforts, but having pictures changed by Van tucky who by their own admition neither knows the breed or anything about dog breeds in general, is begining to be somewhat of a joke. As is the picture representing our breed that is now in place. The dog looks nothing like a Boerboel and is meant to represent the breed??????? What do you want from me on this issue? It is plainly wrong, I have been reporting this person as a vandal for a long time, yet absolutely no Administrator has seen through their actions? Why?

User:Frikkers
 * Which picture do you prefer? -- Samir 05:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, don't revert. Tell me which picture you would like either here or on the talk page.  VanTucky is not a vandal and he's honestly trying to help. -- Samir 06:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Was there a reason why you did this reversion? As you know, I initiated a process of finding consensus on the talk page that you were invited to, and that you've largely ignored by choice. Despite your consistent attacks against other editors, your cumulative actions on this page over the past month have been without regard for the work that others have put into finding a stable version of this page. Be advised that any further reversion on this page will be viewed as vandalism, and that you will be blocked should you not discuss your rationale on the talk page -- Samir 02:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing.  David Ruben Talk 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. David Ruben Talk 01:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. David Ruben Talk 01:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)