User talk:Arabhorseguy

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Arabhorseguy, 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 complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Moonraker (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skowronek article[edit]

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

Thank you!! I'm so pleased that you are using the article talk page. Please be patient. Those discussions can happen slowly. But do not worry. Articles do find their way and things will work out in the end. Best wishes, and if there is anything you ever need, please ask. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:57, 7 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]

This reply to ArabHorseResearch may be helpful. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made a number of edits on the talk page in question and tried to stimulate some coversation.

Arabhorseguy (talk) 07:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to see that. Keep trying. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of sounds like a discussion from somewhere else bled onto Wikipedia with several new user accounts being created. Everyone needs to read WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE. I haven't been on-wiki much for a while, but I'm on it now. Montanabw^(talk) 19:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page Montanabw. These issues are not fringe. Arabhorseguy (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at the article talkpage so everyone can weigh in. I suggest that it is not helpful to go around posting on the talkpages of everyone with whom you disagree, it is better to keep the discussion consolidated in one place. Montanabw^(talk) 22:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying Skowronek (horse) article[edit]

It is best, and fair, that you do not edit the article unless their is consensus. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Skowronek (horse). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 block.

You are promoting a fringe theory and removing properly sourced material. Please stop Montanabw^(talk) 03:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false accusation and you know it. Stop crying wolf. Get consensus for your edits on the page before making them. Arabhorseguy (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You confuse "consensus" with "unanimity." There is a 5:1 consensus at the article against your point of view. I advise you to stop reverting the article and making endless posts and personal attacks against other editors. You are promoting a minority view, which is mentioned in the article with the weight it deserves. Now please stop. Montanabw^(talk) 04:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BigSkyMan, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

You confuse a majority of editors who seem to agree with you with "consensus" and what should be considered "undue." It's all about what reliable sources say Montatabw, and I've got reliable sources for the content I have proposed.Arabhorseguy (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skowronek (horse)[edit]

I think all or almost all of the editors involved agree on one thing, and you disagree with them.

The chances of the vast majority suddenly changing sides and taking your position is near zero.

The way Wikipedia works is that it is time you drop this and move on.

Really, this is pretty good advice.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]