User talk:Ivahri

October 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Lavender Foal Syndrome, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please note the need for reliable sources. Online discussion groups don't count. Philip Trueman (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed tests carried out in Australia of Crabbet horses who have confirmed results have been provided. Also you can check out website http://www.ivahri.com/ as we manage the carrier stallion, lease his clear son and own the other clear stallion.


 * Hi, I think you may misunderstand a bit. While the above thing you mention may seem like it verifies the information, it doesn't count as a reliable source per wikipedia's policies.  The information needs to be published in an independent source with editorial oversight, like a magazine, trade journal, newspaper, etc.  If no such reliable sources exist, the information cannot be aded.  Also, never provide direct contact information anywhere on wikipedia (like phone numbers, email addresses, etc.), as it is expressly forbidden.   Qwyrxian (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Please how can the listing only quote "Egyptian" horses as the only group that is affected by LFS, this information is incorrect. Whilst Egyptian Arabians also have LFS affected foals other groups within the Arabian Horse gene pool also do. If test results from a legitimate government Laboratory are not confirmation I do not know what else could be. Whilst I understand that the politics of the Science community are in play this should not allow incomplete information to be left out there. We have other affected foals only in the last month in Crabbet horses in NSW which have been Tested by Pretoria.


 * You may want to take a look at WP:V, which explicitly states that Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. Results from a government laboratory are fine, as long as they are published somewhere reliable.  Do you see the distinction? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The talk/discussion section for LFS is inactive.

I think the distinctions you call verifiable are very questionable as only one source from "Egyptian" which is only one genetic group within the breed, Crabbet Arabians who are not all Pure Blunt horses do exist and also have affected horses. All horses listed are horses we own, lease or manage. So if you cannot state an example of a Crabbet Horse who is a carrier fine. As there is no where I can upload an attachment of the results from the lab it is hard to provide the verification. So people who own Arabians of Crabbet heritage will believe from WP that they are not effected. So if the scientific side want do not want to give all information that is misinformation.


 * Thanks for that last response because, if I'm understanding you correctly, I think it shows where the real problem is--you're misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. See, Wikipedia is essentially (supposed to be) the same as a real, paper encyclopedia.  Our purpose is not sure to make sure that owners of Arabians of Crabbet heritage, or anyone else for that matter, know anything.   Our only purpose is to collect information which other, reliable sources (again, I recommend you read WP:RS for more information about this) have written and then organize, categorize, and summarize that information.  This makes us substantially different from other websites that you may be familiar with.  If your goal is to make sure certain people have certain information, then I think you're already dealing with that in the right places--in online forums, corporate sites, etc.  If the information you want to add is important enough and accurate enough, then, eventually, reliable sources will report on it and then we can include the info in Wikipedia.
 * As for the lab results, uploading them wouldn't help, because we are in no position to evaluate 1) whether or not the document you upload is authentic, and 2) how to interpret the results. This comes right back to the same issue of reliable sources and original research.  I'm sure this all seems a little odd, but it all comes down to some fundamental differences between Wikipedia and other, general information wesbites.  Please keep asking questions, though.
 * Finally, as for the talk being inactive, there's no way to actually know that for sure. If you post something there, you may find that more people are watching the page than you think.  If no one answers, though, one thing you could do is go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine, which is where editors interested in equine matters work together to improve equine articles.  There are also other steps that we can take involving what is called dispute resolution if it should turn out that there is fundamental disagreement between two or more editors.  However, continually re-adding challenged material is not the right way to proceed.  So maybe you should start by posting your concern's on the article's talk page, and we can go from there.
 * P.S.: Whenever you post on any talk page (like this one, or the article's), at the very end of your message, be sure to add four tildas ( ~ ). This will "sign" your comment with your name, a link to your talk page, and the time you added the comment. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR Warning
Wikipedia has a very strict policy on WP:Edit warring. You may not continually revert people on an article--instead, go to the article's talk page and discuss the proposed changes. Specifically, if you revert more than 3 times in 24 hours, you will be in violation of WP:3RR, and your account will be blocked. You've actually already reverted more than 3 times, but since no one warned you, you will not be reported at this time. This, however, is your only warning on the issue--if you revert again w/in this 24 hours, you will be reported. Please immediately stop edit-warring, go to the article's talk page, and discuss. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The topic itself
Ivahri, your intention is well-meaning, but it gives undue weight to unpublished material that has not been verified by the veterinary and research world. So far, no University has published a press release or peer-reviewed scientific paper that identifies any animals other than those that go to Egyptian bloodlines. Though you may have a connection with the horses in question, your posting that they test as LFS carriers actually could be construed as something hostile against those animals or their breeders. We also have articles on other genetic diseases, such as cerebellar abiotrophy (CA) and HYPP. We only mention named horses when they show up in peer-reviewed literature or in studies released by the breed association. In other words, the horse Impressive (horse) can be named as the progenitor of HYPP because a) he's dead anyway, and b) His influence was verified by scientific study AND publicly released by the AQHA. Here, you have a different agenda, which appears to be to argue that LFS appears in Crabbet bloodlines as well as Egyptian ones. I happen to be aware of these Australian horses (and it is not impossible that the Blunt imports from Egypt DID carry LFS), but until some official entity goes public in a manner that can be verified by outsiders, we can't use it. While I am sympathetic to your passion (I own a horse affected by a genetic disease, so I do understand feeling passionate about the issue), wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must tread a bit more carefully. Montanabw (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)