User talk:Clippityclop

Welcome!

Hello, Clippityclop, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Bishonen | talk 09:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you Bishonen!! I appreciate the help very much. Have decided to start a new page for the information I wanted to add but am going to read thru all these things first and do my best to not have it sound promotional although it is hard to do since there has never been a purebred Appaloosa in existence before. But I am going to put it out there for comment before publishing too so it will head off any of the other problems I had yesterday. Thank you again for your help. KEEP forgetting those dang tilde's! Clippityclop (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Hello, I'm This lousy T-shirt. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Appaloosa because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are not promotional but factual as you would see if you followed the links. Please do not remove the information. What is available is not accurate nor conclusive. People have a right to know about alternatives to a single registry of this breed of horse.

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Appaloosa. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. The text is unsourced, and fails WP:PROMO. Also, the information is already at Appaloosa Horse Club, so is not needed here Joseph2302 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited for the third time and am trying to include valuable information about the Appaloosa breed that is lacking on the Wikipedia page. Is there some third party who could read the information to see if they viewed it as promotional? THe fact that there are ALTERNATIVES to the APHC is NOT promotional! It is a natural part of the evolution of the breed! There are at least 2 other viable alternatives to the ApHC and all 3 are DIFFERENT. They all have different rules and guidelines and thereby produce a different horse.

Joseph2302 I do not know how to get in touch with you. I am trying to comply with the complaint and remove anything from my information that is viewed as promotional. I would like to escalate this to the next level if possible. Someone who is unbiased needs to look at the information and decide whether or not it is promotional. I do not believe it is. You obviously do. I'm not trying to have an editing war with anyone. I just would like to have the information about the Appaloosa be as accurate as possible.

No reliable sources have been provided. Also, "ICAA - International Colored Appaloosa Association, whose interest lies in producing the first purebred within the Appaloosa breed and FAHR - or Foundation Appaloosa Horse Registry" and "The International Colored Appaloosa Associationis the first and only Appaloosa registry created to produce eight generation purebred Appaloosa horses by the only method recognized by animal scientists and geneticists." reads like an advert for ICAA, as does most of the rest of the ICAA information. See WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't see how I'm alledgedly biased, when @Ealdgyth: and @This lousy T-shirt: have also reverted the same text. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What resource would you consider reliable? There has NEVER been in history a purebred Appaloosa. NEVER. I will leave the Appaloosa topic and create a new one for the new purebred. Will that satisfy? And by the way I did not REVERT. I attemped to comply with your promotional issues and changed the language to what I thought fixed the problem.

If you're going to add text without reliable sources that reads like an advert then no. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN... I am asking you what YOU consider a reliable resource? I am doing my best to comply but you are not helping. I don't know what you consider reliable especially since there has never been a purebred Appaloosa in history.

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Clippityclop, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Joseph2302 (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Appaloosa, you may be blocked from editing. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Appaloosa. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Clippityclop reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: ). Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Clippityclop/sandbox

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Clippityclop/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]