"Jesus Christ. Why didn't you just say so about ten thousands reverts ago?" 

     Ten thousand? Like two edits! Using Jesus Christ could be construed as swearing! I don't care but someone might. 

 "Listen, constantly re-contributing an image you created, and thus probably your dog, to an article without providing any talk justification when it is hotly contested is not okay." 

     Listen, you're the admitted deletionist and do it on the fly without thought. And which image are you referring to? Hotly contested? Where'd you get that from? As if it's an administrative hot subject. 

 "In the future, if you'd simply discussed with me that patchwork is a different type even if it is the same color as the infobox image, I could have listened to reason." 

     Your sentence does not make sense. How can I in the future have discussed (past tense) anything with you? Plus, I did research to find that image was different (patchwork vs. blue) 

 "But simply reverting to a poor image of what is most likely your pet is not going to just set without discussion. 

     Poor image? Which image is poor? What if it is my dog? Does that detract from true content? Might I remind you I fixed your photo. Now that was a poor image. 

 "I spaced out the image some to avoid "image stacking" (placing image one on top of the other) which is something expressly discouraged." 

     That's good. I guess resolution has a lot to do with that. As if I'm a Wiki terrorist. I'm not doing it because I'm destructive. What resolution are you using? 

 "and by coat types, I mean the simplest definition: variations in coat either in pattern, texture or color." 

     You didn't specify, you just said coat types. Color is not a type. Do you own a dog? Back to my porno I go. Noles1984