User talk:Kris1111

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your edits to Equestrianism
As I mentioned on the talk page of Equestrianism, your edits are unsourced, and uneeded at that article. The proper place to discuss the various theories about cold, warm and hot bloods isn't in the equestrian article, but in the article on breeds, which is horse breeds. Also, any statement such as "with a most popular example being the Quarter Horse." needs a source, as it's detailing a point of view. Similiar examples from your edit include "Hot-blooded horses are known for being smaller and leaner with a great amount of energy and endurance, for example, Arabian horses or Thoroughbreds, and are usually fine-boned as well as having thin skin and thin coats." or "Cold-blooded horses are known for being more calm, strong, and durable,...". The proper response to having your edits reverted isn't to readd the information again, as that is known as edit warring and can get you blocked from editing if you continue it. Rather, it's important to use the talk pages of articles to discuss with the other editors your edits. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Kris, I know your edits are well-intentioned, but I reverted them again. First of all, some of the things you inserted about horse racing are in the more detailed articles on the various topics and thus the equestrianism article is a summary.  Similar material was deleted from this article about a year ago in order to make it shorter and more concise.  The changes to the intro were well-intentioned, but they didn't really improve things.  This does not go to say that the article is even close to perfect, but we need to discuss changes before making big edits.  We welcome your comments on the talk page.   Montanabw (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Another point to keep in mind is that www.encyclopedia.com may not be a very good reference, since it's another encyclopedia project. Typically one encyclopedia doesn't cite another (except in very limited circumstances). You might want to review our reliable sources policy. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)