User talk:Trillhill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your changes are in violation of the Wikipedia policies.

I had had clearly posted in the discussion area on November 4th, 2005 that the article must be non-slanderous, non-political, and contain facts (which can be supported).

Your "edits" changed the neutrality of the article and is deemed inappropriate and slanderous towards "non-ISSR" members and only detracts from the purpose of the article - which is the Shiloh Shepherd DOG itself.

Any infomation, spins, etc that you'd like to place on the ISSR, SSDCA etc are welcome to be placed in the ISSR page, not the breed page. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide opinion, but information to the users.

This is the second attempt for resolution. First attempt was placed in the discussion section as last edit was "anon". Second attempt is now via direct contact to you. Wikipedia Counter Vandalism Unit has bee alerted and the next step will involve RfC/Mediation/Arbitration.

Continued attempted to place slander in the artile will be addressed with Wikipedia moderators. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shiloh lover (talk • contribs). 13:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

The entry on Shiloh Shepherds was originally written by the well respected J. Jeffrey Bragg in the summer of 2003. I have a copy of his original article and have only been trying to restore the article to the original.

The link to the registry comparison page was based on a comparison of the alternative registries to the original Shiloh Shepherd registry and is based on their rules as found on their own web pages.

As for the trademark issue, please refer to the 1996 New Jersey court settlement: http://www.shilohshepherds.com/1996CourtCase.htm in which Tina Barber's common law rights to the name "Shiloh Shepherd" were recognized. Pdf's of the original case are attached to this page.

[edit] Shiloh Shepherd Dog

Since I don't recall having seen you post on the Talk page before, I'm going to assume good faith. Any comments on the talk page about other editors will not be tolerated, regardless of whether or not you feel it is a personal attack. Please focus on the articles, not the editors. Thanks and happy editing! .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 22:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Trillhill, this is your last warning. We do not tolerate personal attacks here. We do not have any interest in this ongoing drama between the registries and have kindly asked many times for all of you to take your issues elsewhere. Furthermore, Tina is, in fact, not blocked - she can rant until hell freezes over, but that won't make it true. Being an administrator myself, I most certainly would not have needed to ask someone else should Tina's actions have warranted a block. Unless you can provide verfiable proof, I suggest you not attempt to defame an uninvolved administrator again. I suggest that you work on that article you're publishing since I'm certain its a much better forum for your concerns than Wikipedia. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I willnot be able to act as an advocate in this matter at this time, but I suggest you post your request here [1] and I am sure someone will respond. Good luck.Gator (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)