User talk:ArabHorseResearch

February 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Skowronek (horse) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Skowronek (horse) was changed by ArabHorseResearch (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.896532 on 2018-02-07T06:34:36+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skowronek article

Please discuss things at Talk:Skowronek (horse) rather than reverting each other. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skowronek

Allowing anyone to edit anything is disastrous. There is so much misinformation it is ridiculous. The person who continually removes factual statements from Skowronek's entry is should not be allowed to do so. There is no refutable proof of his claims, and the horse has been accepted by the World Arabian Horse Organization, and the breed registration, and purebred. His pedicure was fleshed out by them and proven to be purebred Arabian. Addingnmisinformation should not be allowed simply because he cited opinions from a couple books he read. ArabHorseResearch (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty simple at Wikipedia. If you write something, support it with a good reference. No good reference, then that content has no business being there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skowronek

are you the one who locked Skowronek's entry? I am going to provide the references that proves what I am saying to be true. I still hold to my previous statement. It seems to me that the only concern is whether a source is given, and not if it is factual or "good". I have sent an email to the appropriate authorities discussing this disaster. False claims are not going to remain on Skowronek's page! ArabHorseResearch (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to discuss things together rather than just making statements. Engage each other in conversation. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CrabbetGirl and the IP

Are you CrabbetGirl?

Also, please do not edit using an IP during this dispute.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crabbed Girl

No, I am not Crabbed Girl. I am not using an IP. ArabHorseResearch (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've either got sockpuppets or meatpuppets here, Anna. Thanks for your help with this. Montanabw^(talk) 18:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There has been talk about off-site discussion, so meatpuppetry looks right. Thanks, Montanabw. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppetry

What is me at puppetry?

I don't debate Skowronek on any website. I run research groups and post info on historical Arabian horses, Skowronek included.

ArabHorseGuy frequently debates Skowronek's pedigree and archers with people who don't accept his theory. After that initial debate he started months ago, I stopped talking with him. I try to avoid debatess and only post the research I find for my historical groups.

If someone disagrees with What I find, I do not badger them.

I have been researching the Arabian breed, their history and pedigrees for more than 20 years. It is my passion. The only reason I came to Wikipedia is because someone told me Skowronek's entry had been vandalised with incorrect info.

This may take some time, but I am going to try and find where WAHO (world Arabian horse organization) and AHA (Arabian Horse Association), the breed authorities, have researched and accepted Skowronek as a purebred Arabian horse. ArabHorseResearch (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppetry is a term Wikipedians use for an individual who gets into a discussion or argument on Wikipedia and gets their real-life friends or family to create accounts to back them up. It's coming into question here because so many new accounts popped up and began editing the same article at once. What Montanabw thought happened (she of course could be wrong or right) is that a group of people who know each other in real life, maybe from a horse club or something, got into an argument over Skowronek's bloodlines and carried it onto Wikipedia. Or that the discussion came from an Arabian forum somewhere. We're (me, Montanabw, Anna Frodesiak, Ealdgyth, the longer standing editors commenting on the article now) not trying to call names here, but trying to keep the article in decent shape and work out the problems. It's too bad that you and the others are in a rough discussion right off the bat, but I can tell you that most Wikipedia editing is not that way. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't fret, ArabHorseResearch. There are three solid editors here on WP who "get it" about Arabians and we also have been here a long time. I have removed all the "Skowronek is not a purebred" material and if the editor in question keeps it up, he will be subject to appropriate consequences. If you look at the article talkpage, you will see that we understand the topic and are monitoring the article. In other words, don't panic, we're on it. Montanabw^(talk) 03:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]