User talk:Stretchrunner

This is a really good and helpful thing. Stretchrunner (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Russ, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Gulfstream Park Handicap— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Silas B. Mason requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "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 deleted 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. reddogsix (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your aditions to the article Durbar (horse). I am, however, going to remove the "citation needed" tag from the lede. It isnt necessary to have a reference for a statement in the lede if that statement is supported and referenced in the body of the article. In this case the section on the colt's racing career mentions that he was no match for Sardanaple and La Farina, and there is a reference from a contemporary press report. I have also expanded the "Assessment" section to effect this point. Hope this help. Tigerboy1966  21:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed you've set up a few redlinks in race articles to "Brian J. Meehan". Are you thinking of creating an article for the trainer? There is no other Brian Meehan article so no need for a middle initial, and he is generally known as Brian Meehan in any case --Bcp67 (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the reply - I've moved the article to the simple Brian Meehan name and fixed the entry on the Meehan surname page. You might have noticed I changed the name of the jockey back to Wally Swinburn on the revision you made to the Norfolk Stakes (Great Britain). Wally Swinburn is an Irish jockey and the father of the late Walter Swinburn - their careers overlapped and in fact they both won Classic races in the 1981 season. All the best! --Bcp67 (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying on my talk page. I'll leave it as Wally Swinburn, he was never known as Walter snr and there aren't many articles linking to him. I'll probably create a little stub for him over the week to end any ambiguity. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you create a new article it would be helpful if you set up Talk page as well as this links the article to the Horse racing project. I've added a few for example Talk:Riggs Handicap. Tigerboy1966  11:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Talk:Riggs Handicap now you'll see that I have temporarily taken out the "rating" sections. You can just copy and paste that text and not worry about adding ratings to the article talk page. If you click around the Assessments box at Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing you should get a feel for how to rate articles. And don't worry: no-one ever got permanently banned for rating an article as "start" rather than "stub", or "B" instead of "C". Tigerboy1966  12:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no links to disambiguation pages, so now that you made Clyde Phillips a dab page, would you please follow up and fix all the incoming links? (Dabfix and Dabsolver are helpful.) Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to. Can you tell me how I find them? Stretchrunner (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just go to the page and use the “what links here” link (under “Tools”) on the left side to find out what links to it. Then plug each page into Dabsolver to find and fix the link. (Dabfix won’t help until about a day after your edits.)

And just for future reference, don’t post the same thing in more than one place. Usually when I leave a message on someone’s talk page, I’ve also put that page on my watchlist, so I will notice when an answer is posted. — Gorthian (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Wildair, Stretchrunner!

Wikipedia editor SkyGazer 512 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Would you be able to source the Breeding section and the last part of the Progeny section, so that the information can easily be verified?

To reply, leave a comment on SkyGazer 512's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you've put some links in articles like Epsom Oaks and Ascot Gold Cup to Frank O'Neill (horse) which should be Frank O'Neill (jockey) or Frank O'Neill (horse racing). Easy mistake. Keep up the good work. Tigerboy1966  09:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I read somewhere (a reliable source of course) that he had a face like a horse! Thanks. Stretchrunner (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Derby is not what it was and never has been. In the early 19th century, aristocratic patrons complained that the once exclusive event had been ruined by the rabble of working-class Londoners who flocked to Epsom to enjoy the carnival and had no interest in the actual racing. By the late-Victorian era, racing buffs looked back fondly on the good-old-bad-old days and lamented the fact that the day had become too respectable and dull. The success of French-bred horses (many of whom appeared some way behind the best on their side of the channel) in the 1940s and 50s was of course presented as heralding the death of the British bloodstock industry and end of the Classics as internationally significant races. Much the same had been said after the wins of Gladiateur for France in 1865 and Iroquois for America in 1881.

Another thing to consider is the growth in international, all-aged, racing. When I became interested in horse racing in the late 1970s the only international race that mattered was the Arc. Intercontinental racing meant sending one or two horses over to Laurel Park for the Washington D C International. That world has gone, and winning a race for three-year-olds in June, however impressively, doesn't count for much in the grand scheme of things.

If you look at British newspapers from 120 years ago "Sporting" meant Horse racing, with maybe the odd cricket or rugby result thrown in. Today there are dozens of sports and lots of other ways to spend ones leisure time.

And yet... If you go to Epsom and stand by the winning post you can look up to the top of Tattenham Hill and if you have any soul in you, you will be thrilled. Your first impression will probably be, "what an absolutely insane place to build a racecourse!" and then you will realise that this is the turf that was trod by immortals for over 200 years, and that you are standing on holy ground. Tigerboy1966  22:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stretchrunner,

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for creating Jerry C. Meyer! I edit here too, under the username Willsome429 and it's nice to meet you:-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

If he really does have so many career accomplishments, shouldn't they be included in prose? And shouldn't there be more sources to support him?

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Willsome429}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Havre de Grace Racetrack 1912.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:HavredeGraceRacetrack.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 22:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Edward F. Simms.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|MainlyTwelve}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

MainlyTwelve (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I've noticed you've seemed to have trouble with a couple of aspects on Wikipedia, and would just like to leave a pop up saying that you can come to me with any questions you have anytime. If there's any horsey-related articles you'd like to create, for example :) Collaboration is a key aspect of Wikipedia!

Salutations, Horsegeek^(talk) 21:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Juan Arias (horse trainer).

User:Girth Summit while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

I've fixed up the refs, which give more substantial coverage to the subject, and added a bit about his early life.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Girth Summit}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

GirthSummit _(blether) 09:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - further to the above note, I just wanted to drop you a line to explain what I was doing in a bit more detail - apologies in advance if you're familiar with all this already, but I got the sense from your message that you weren't familiar with the term notability as it applies to Wikipedia articles, or why I mentioned it in my edit summary.

I volunteer as part of the new page patrol team, checking new articles as they are created to ensure that their subjects are notable (amongst other things). Notability is judged against a number of different guidelines, the most fundamental being GNG, and articles about subjects which don't appear to be notable are nominated for deletion via WP:AfD.

On my talk page, you said Any horse, jockey, or trainer who wins the Kentucky Derby (the most important horse race in North America) gets a bio at Wikipedia - I agree with you on that, and the relevant guideline is WP:NHORSERACING, which says that trainers who have won such races are presumed likely to pass GNG. When I reviewed the article, it seemed clear to me that the subject was notable, and any experienced reviewer, who was familiar with WP:NHORSERACING, would have recognised that; however, the sources used in the article didn't give the subject significant coverage (they were really about the horse, with brief mentions of Arias). I was eager to ensure that the article contained sourcing that better demonstrated that Arias himself would pass GNG, so I found a few sources with the intention of adding them properly, but something came up in real life and I had to log off quickly, so I dumped them on the page as bare URLs and noted in my edit summary that the subject was notable, and that I was intending to clear up the refs shortly. To be clear, I was doing this not to interfere or waste anybody's else's time, but to avoid anyone's time being wasted in an unnecessary deletion discussion, should anyone else have nominated it without proper investigation.

I hope that all makes sense - let me know if you have any questions about any of this. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lexington Stakes (Belmont Park), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Elmendorf and Middle distance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stretchrunner

Thank you for creating Jabot (horse).

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stretchrunner. You have new messages at Montanabw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And hey, just an FYI that though I’ve been less active in the last couple of years, I’ve been around a long time and yes, I do know how disambiguation works. Fought (and won) a significant battle about its use in the horse projects, by the way 🙃. Montanabw^(talk) 15:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I’d pop over to your page to share some general thoughts about some of your ideas. I’ve been on WP so long and seen so many various debates over everything from the big GMO controversy to navbox and infobox design to the endless debate about whether Phar Lap was an Aussie horse or a Kiwi horse. But it gives me some idea of how things that get so contentious that they wind up at ArbCom and subject to Discretionary Sanctions get resolved. In short, while it’s fine for there to be project guidelines, they have to be developed with an understanding of how formatting and style dovetail with things like wikidata and current best practices. (And the MOS isn’t always kept up to date on this, so there’s periodic drama even there). After a guideline is decided upon, there is also an understanding that consensus on a given article can override these guidelines. Policy is different, as that applies universally across all of WP. But that’s not what we are worried about here.

The “infobox wars” are a sad example... The ultimate decision by ArbCom was that use of infoboxes was to be a case-by-case consensus (which satisfied no one). The case arose from the classical music project, which had a vocal group of members fighting to eliminate them for years, but another group in that project, and most other projects, used them extensively. At first, the opponents had a point, design was clunky, and people used to fight over things as silly as what color strip to put on top—that was resolved by a best practice was no color at all and some changes to the underlying coding. So one problem was solved, though many project infoboxes still might have color because there are too many projects and too few people who understand the coding needed to fix them across all hundreds of thousands of uses. That’s a good example of newer articles being done in the new and better style, but the old ones, which may be a majority, still have the old format, and will until someone figures out a way to make a mass bot edit that doesn’t foul up everything. And yet, there still exists the anti-infobox crowd, who is now at war with the wikidata crowd, as wikidata is linked to infoboxes. (Sigh)

Anyway, my point is that you aren’t the first person to want to clean up a project’s articles and make them consistent. Many times, it’s a good idea and quite helpful. But it’s also important to seek consensus first, before you put fruitless hours into an effort that’s going to fail consensus, and even with it, to know there will always be exceptions. So long as it’s all done with good faith, it’s discussion that counts. Montanabw^(talk) 18:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Infobox wars! - sad for sure although I think the "person infox" (e.g.Christopher Chenery) Wikipedians put together with its many multiple options is pretty good. I don't know if it's a template set in stone, do you? There is an easy way (or should be) to organize/standardize horse related boxes, tables etc, through consensus that must be followed but can certainly be questioned any time with a view to improvement. I mean, it's really just a tiny little box with a few lines of text. And for now, at most we have only a handful of participants. I have been preparing for a few weeks to present a "standardized" method to deal with "standardizing" essential elements in U.S. racing. (Yup, you read it right.) I'll demonstrate with the Table setup to begin with because I hate doing horse racing bios but love using them to quick-learn. I like editing/creating races because that specific research seems satisfying for me although I don't know why. We have the many table variations because we (the Project) never got around to dealing with it and new variations are going to continue to come if we don't. Updating races is a whole different kettle of fish but from what I've see, the Brits here seem to be doing it well. Thanks @Montanabw: am looking forward to working on this with you and others. Stretchrunner (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The basic standardized concepts have all been done, Over a decade ago. To the extent there is some inconsistency, talk to the techie folks who do The work behind the scenes. I think the biggest thing is making stuff look right on mobile devices as well as computers. I’d say the horse bios are well in hand, and I’d definitely use the work done on the British races as a starting point, though I also think a nod to the long time race updaters is wise. Montanabw^(talk) 03:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant drive by comment: Infoboxes is not the most trivial thing we have gone to war over by a long way. The war over date formatting was severe and ended with multiple editors being banned, including administrators. Both sides employed multiple bots making mass changes to try and enforce their favoured formatting. Those bots were still being discovered and shut down for years afterwards – there may still be some running now for all I know, I caught a bunch of them operating from IPs at least ten years after the main event. It's episodes like this that is the reason MOS:STYLEVAR exists and there is a marked reluctance in the community to prescribe standards for styles. SpinningSpark 09:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article you created on the horse to Thinking Cap. As a proper name it should be capitalised. The original soft redirect at Thinking cap has been restored. It was quite messy to sort out the histories so you will probably get a whole bunch of notifications about it being repeatedly deleted. Don't worry, it's all good now. SpinningSpark 08:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:DATELIST, "Chronological lists, such as timelines, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order". Bayakoa Stakes (Los Alamitos)#Winners is in reverse chronological order. Narky Blert (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narky Blert, it makes much more sense to organize these lists with the most recent first. IAR applies. Montanabw^(talk) 22:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What page of the NYT did this appear on? Is there a byline? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it was p. 18. In any case, I replied on my Talk page under your comment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you created a category “female horse trainers” and then moved all the women into it but left all the men in the regular “horse trainers” category. Same with jockeys. You need to either create a category of “male horse trainers” and move all the men there, making the main category either fully diffused or fully non-diffused, or just put all the women back in the regular category. This is a long-standing debate over the issue of “ghettoizing” women and we need to not do this. Montanabw^(talk) 06:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

reply @Montanabw:
Am glad to see you care about such matters. It's important.

However, Jockeys? - no, I only created Category:American female horse trainers because this same thing has been here on Wikipedia for ten years. Note there is the base category with Australian, British, Irish, and Canadian.

Suggest typing just these three words in the Wikipedia search bar: Category:American female -- and look at the search's drop-down list that appears with its large number of female category segregations.

I actually believe that the categories designating Female jockeys & Female trainers is good for now. In 10-20 years (I do hope sooner, although I doubt it will) they should be merged. But, today it is important to "highlight" them as their numbers are so small. Time for everyone, everywhere, to look and learn. IMHO, whenever someone clicks on one of the female only categories they will see the very low numbers and might 1) read more of the articles and perhaps then be motivated to 2) do a little research and learn there are plenty more female articles still to be done (we don't even have one on the very first female trainer in the U.S.) then hopefully 3) get involved and create new one(s).

These seem to me to be massive "ghettoizing" made worse by many sub-categories which are also divided into "male" & "female":

• Category:African-American sportsmen‎
• Category:African-American sportswomen‎

An aside. It's likely that nobody has noticed, but when I create, update, or just edit a horse race table, if possible I do my best to find and replace Owner: "Mrs. John Doe" with showing only HER name. It's very hard to find a female first name but if one gets lucky and does, it can take many hours. Stretchrunner (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: I disagree with changing the name from what was registered when the horse won the event. If the reference (especially in the period when women were not allowed to be owners) given indicates Mrs. Joe Brown or some pseudonym like when Merman who won the 1900 Ascot Gold Cup the name should stay. Also this conversation is worthy to be transferred to our WP:Horse racing page for more input. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: @Brudder Andrusha: Good idea. Please post your views on the WP:Horse racing page. Stretchrunner (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The “male/female” Categories should either be fully disseminated or fully not disseminated. Either is acceptable. My issue is when all the women —but only the women— are taken out of the main category and shoved into a “female” category, but the men are all left in the main category, without a separate “male” category. That’s “ghettoizing.” It was an issue brought to the attention of a national press regarding women who are writers a few years ago and I thought this particular issue was put to rest. However it appears it isn’t.Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: Thanks, I was not really aware. I can see their point. Do you think we should create a separate "male" or revert to one cat only for both. I would like to "highlight" women trainers but whatever the consensus is here I'll go along with? - P.S. Am I doing this "Ping" thing right or should I have replied on your Talk page? Stretchrunner (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest solution for now is to put all the women back in the main category, keep the women’s categories as well, then add the template about how the main category should not be fully disseminated. Take a look at what I did in Category:Horse breeds, or there are 10 gazillion spinoff categories but none of the main articles are taken out of the primary category and moved. The question of whether to fully disseminate into men’s and women’s categories is in my opinion something of a red herring, at least for a relatively small category set like this one.Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: Just came across these:

• Category:Kentucky women in equestrian field
• Category:Kentucky women horse trainers

plus:

• Category:Women sports announcers (I just did infox box, refs etc for Patricia Cooksey and this was in it plus the American Female Jockey one alone without the main category which was there originally but changed by this: 06:56, 4 November 2011‎ John Vandenberg talk contribs‎ 1,704 bytes +7‎ removed Category:American jockeys; added Category:American female jockeys using HotCat

Given there are so many other "women" catagories, maybe with the "Female Jockey" already existing we should leave the "trainer" category for now and at some point soon place it all on the Project discussion board as potential input on the overall discussion (by a heckuvalot more "Members") of "female" category segregation. Stretchrunner (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge is when people go in and remove the “duplicate” categories from articles. The short term solution is to leave (or restore) the main category (i.e. horse trainers) AND the breakout category (i.e. female horse trainers from south Ploughkeepsie who also do underwater basketmweaving...). But adding the non-diffusing tag to the main category page seems to slow down the people who get over-helpful,with categories... Montanabw^(talk) 06:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Breeders' Stakes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Landry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stretchrunner,

Thank you for creating Eclipse Stakes (Morris Park).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Can you please check reference 4 for error. Thanks for the article!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Joseywales1961}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

JW 1961 Talk 21:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you added sire line to El Rio Rey, but that article desperately needs his pedigree. Could you pop that in too? Montanabw^(talk) 18:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Rio_Rey&diff=926062663&oldid=898670897

The other edit is trying some edits carefully. Also, do not create the category for a Woodstock, Ontario title. Do not revert it back please go with the People from Woodstock, Ontario category that is already existed. Do you understand? 2605:8D80:442:5AC7:2D3B:21C1:FC1:4C70 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I post according to Wikipedia policy as per my Ted Cruz example. Please do not revert it again. Thank you.Stretchrunner (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about another IP's edits on Charles Boyle. I hope you will to keep the People from Woodstock, Ontario category and it has 58 articles in the category. If it's the People from Woodstock, Ontario category will now have 58 articles and go with the category that is already existed. I am sorry for the confused edits. Will you accept my apology and we will keep the category that is already existed. Hear? Thanks! 2605:8D80:442:5AC7:2D3B:21C1:FC1:4C70 (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not restore the original People from Hamilton, Ontario category, he is a thoroughbred racer and Sportspeople from Hamilton, Ontario will fit the category. Please do not make wrong edits. So talk first and discuss. OK? 2605:8D80:442:5AC7:2D3B:21C1:FC1:4C70 (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Quarter Horse trainers has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American horse racing commentators has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:ThomasHBurnsjockey-d1913.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. mattbr 08:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]