# Talk:Azteca horse

The information about the breed classifications is useful, but not well presented here. Probably each subsection could be fleshed out to a paragrpah or so. Kerowyn  Leave a note  20:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


### Discussion
|}

http://www.ultimo-rrl.com/info_azteca.php
Please see the above link. It looks like the article was copied almost word for word without citing the website.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.210.242 (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 

Could be, no problem with me if someone wants to clean up this article.  It does need some help.  Montanabw(talk) 04:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

[1] Contains BY:-righted photos of an Azteca. Countercanter (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Azteca horse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: BigDom (talk · contribs) 14:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Nice prose, easy to understand even for people like myself who don't know loads about horses.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
Lead section summarises the article contents nicely.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Reference 5 to the IMH seems to point to the wrong page.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Can't think of anything that's missing, all the main points are covered.
B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
All from Commons and correctly licensed.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Nice pictures that add to the article and simple but useful captions.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I'll pass this once that stray reference is fixed. Cheers, BigDom 14:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the link. IMH changes their website around at least once a year, and they never leave redirects - it's extremely annoying! :( Thank you very much for the review! Dana boomer (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I'll pass it now. Well done, BigDom 16:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

An edit comment reads, in part, "Unreliable source, conversions can't be part template/part not".
On the source: I of course considered that. I would agree that the lack of a named publisher or author is cause for concern. However, the site carries authoritative material, much of it from the AMCCRA, and does not carry publicity. It's my opinion that it is, pro tem, better than no source at all. What about including the height data, and tagging the source as possibly unreliable?
On conversions: ermm, where in the MOS does it say that? What possible difference can there be between writing "1 inch (2.54 cm)" and "1 inch (2.54 cm)"? Consistency of style is a given; where and by whom is consistency of wiki-markup required?Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about "no source at all" - the material there originally was sourced. And no, we are not going to replace a reliable source with an unreliable one just so that you can have meters first. The idea is to get unreliable sources out of articles, not deliberately add them in and tag them. The source is unreliable because we don't know who the author/publisher is, what their background is, how expert they are, what the editorial control is, etc. There is no way of knowing if they are a top breeder and author on Aztecas or some high school student who decided to build a webpage. Dana boomer (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, if it was reliably sourced, shouldn't that fact have been noted in the article? There was no 'ostensible source for the height or weight. That is what I meant by "no source at all". Anyway, I trust it is now resolved by the subsequent edits. As for the matter of "meters first", I refer you yet again to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Units of measurement, which is unequivocal on the topic. I am curious to know why you think you can persistently ignore it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
It was noted in the article - it was the next subsequent reference. We do not need references after every sentence... An easier way to do this would have been to just ask if the information was sourced... And I'm not "persistently ignor[ing]" anything - you have been told time and again, by many different editors (I refer you to my list on the Andalusian talk page, where you last made issues), that your reading of that is wrong, at least for this subset of articles. Dana boomer (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, got that now, it's available on amazon.com Look Inside. Sorry about that. That's a source to treat with a certain amount of circumspection, based on a cursory examination: she maintains that the Sorraia is a separate species, Equus stenonius (p.72), and that crossing a 3/4 Andalusian with an Andalusian will give a 5/8 Andalusian (p.82).
On "meters first", your memory is perhaps deceiving you; the list on the Andalusian talk page referred not to primary units, but to the quite unnecessary conversion of hands to inches, on which topic you will note that I have here respected, while still disagreeing with, your wishes. No-one has suggested that WP:UNIT can be ignored; and yet you persist in ignoring it. Why is that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the list I gave on Andalusian was in regards to the three-way conversion; however, the links I gave there also point to where we discussed that the unit that came first should essentially be the one that was given in the majority of reliable sources. I can easily give you half a dozen sources that give the height in hands - all of them reliable. I'm not sure why you are discussing Dutson's views on the Sorraia - she makes it clear that this is what "historians" thought in 2005, and she's correct - this was prior to (or around the time) that genetic studies were proving it was just another horse, and it was still debated in the scientific community - and she's in general quite solid on American (both North and South) breeds. My comment was that it appears here that you came in and deliberately looked for sources that give your preferred unit first - to the point of adding unreliable sources. Why is that? Dana boomer (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Two reasons: the first, as you surmise, was to reference the units that are required by WP:MOSNUM; whether I myself prefer them is quite irrelevant. The relevant part of the MOS (which I recognise is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule-book) reads "All other articles: the main unit is generally an SI unit or a non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI." It most definitely does not read "the [main] unit ... should essentially be the one that was given in the majority of reliable sources". This was discussed here, where you will note that no-one suggested that the MOS needed to be changed. Of course, if you want to convince others that such a change to the MOS is needed, I'll be just as happy to stick to a revised version of it as I am to stick to the current one. The second reason, which I have until now refrained from mentioning, is that the article as it stood suffered rather heavily from the same US-centred point of view that unfortunately affects so many articles within this project. This is supposedly the national horse of Mexico (though I've yet to find any Mexican source that supports that claim), and yet a large part of the article, right from the first sentence, seems to be about horses that are registered with the name, but not the requirements, of the breed in the USA. I had hoped to redress the balance a little by finding some sources that deal specifically with the Mexican horse in Mexico. I'll admit that I have not found it easy, and apologise for using a source that you found unreliable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
We ignore you  JLAN, because you are wrong. I am concerned that now putting aside all pretension of being a responsible editor and are either caught up in your measurement obsession or you've just decided to be a complete jackass, I won't speculate as to which. You are clearly harassing Dana for the sake of harassment and you need to stop.  You  clearly attack  appear to target articles only when someone attempts to take them to GA or another standard, and most of the time, it is due to your objections to the use of hands as a means to measure horses. Let it go.  Horses are going to be measured in hands in the English-speaking world, including nations that otherwise use the metric system. Here, the Azteca is a breed developed in North America, and unquestionably is measured in hands, the inches conversion comes first, and all conversions are added as a courtesy to non-horse readers; a courtesy which you are constantly trying to remove when the origins go the other way.  Montanabw(talk) 01:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see that chart go, because it seems bulky, mostly irrelevant, and I believe that it was once in the article and removed quite some time back. As the breed has origins in both the US and Mexico, I believe it would be inappropriate to give one nation's standards more weight than the other in those places where they differ.  Thoughts?  Montanabw(talk) 19:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The breed mostly originated in Mexico, as that's where the guy originally bred this cross and called it the Azteca, but they are also very prevalent in the US now. I agree that the charts are bulky and TMI - it's enough to just say that "various crosses of the three breeds are given different letters, ranging from A to G (or whatever it is, am not looking at the article right now)". Just because information is out there doesn't mean we need to include it - this is a generalist encyclopedia, and 90% of the readers are not going to care that being 5/8 one thing, 1/8 another and 2/8 a third makes a horse an "Azteca E" according to one of the breed registries. Dana boomer (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
While this article is protected, you can use the {{editprotected}} tag to request an admin to make non-controversial changes. I'm happy to do this if participants here are in agreement. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the most active editors, that would be Dana, JLAN, and myself.  JLAN added the new material in question, (all edits within a three day period, following the article achieving GA status) and although I would love to AGF, past behavior suggests JLAN will, of course, disagree, and disagree forever.   Dana, who did the GA push, incorporated some of his suggestions already, so we've already compromised and attempted to rech consensus. I don't think there is really any compromise possible with JLAN, though if there is, I'm all ears.  I personally think you could remove the charts and keep everything else that's there while we review the source material JLAN also included.  As for myself, I did blow up at JLAN pretty bad, and that probably didn't help matters, but my reverts were not at all spite, take a reasonable look at the hard work Dana has been doing and I encourage you to see this in light of the big picture. Montanabw(talk) 00:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Amatulic. I also note something approaching, although still short of, a much-needed apology from User:Montanabw. As predicted, I do disagree on this point; I would not have added the tables if I had not thought that to do so would improve the article. Unfortunately I have not to date been able to find a complete breed standard; the Canadian association publishes it, but as a booklet, not on the web, and I have no way to access either of the two Mexican books on the breed which will surely give it. In its absence, I believe the details of the permitted cross-breeds help to demonstrate the rigorous approach of the Mexican association. It's my opinion (predictably) that this rather complex information is better presented in this way than in running text, but I'm not wedded to that. As for TMI, please see WP:NOTPAPER.
I'm puzzled by Dana's reference to "one of the breed registries"; the breed register is indeed jointly held by SAGARPA and the AMCCRA, but the standard is the same for both, is it not? I will attempt in the next couple of days to propose revised versions of the lead and Uses section, which seem to me those most urgently in need of attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
There is also the American registry, which you are apparently completely ignoring. The data in the tables is not useful to the general reader, and it disrupts the flow of the article. At this point, JLAN, you're outvoted. Feel free to present further information if you wish, and I have no problem with the majority of the information you have added to the articles, but the overly-specific crossbreeding tables are not needed to present a picture of the breed to the general reader. Dana boomer (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm not ignoring the American Azteca, which I think currently has two registries, not one? I believe that it should be made quite clear in the article that it is a separate, though similar, breed, and I apologise for not having said so more clearly. It doesn't conform to the Azteca breed standard, so clearly can't be the same horse, any more than, say, the laughable British Appaloosa is regarded as the same as the US breed, right? An alternative would be to split the American variety off into a separate article, of course.
As for WP:VOTE, I don't recall anyone calling for one. I must have missed WP:Article flow and WP:General reader, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, your other song and dance, that everything that differs from the view of the nation that happened to open the first registry must be wrong, a separate breed and thus a new article.  Not going there.  You've also tried this stunt at Percheron, Lusitano, and Andalusian horse, as well as your attempt to create a content fork at Haflinger, and we are not having this debate again.  Please re-read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Montanabw(talk) 19:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The chart is clunky, unnecessary detail, and only of interest to those who are seriously into the breed.  That's my point.  The issues JLAN has with me are irrelevant. (I apologized and refactored my posts calling JLAN a J---A--, but that apology was to the WP community as a whole, as I recognize that it is not nice manners to swear at people and call them names on WP. I should not have lost my temper.   If JLAN wishes to apologize to ME for multiple vicious and insulting comments,  we could both engage in the negotiation of a truce. Otherwise, my personal views stand unaltered.)  This is now the fifth or sixth horse article that passed GA or FA, and primarily due to the work of Dana, that JLAN has attempted to systematically shred with dubious source material, or unnecessary tendentious detail, and there is no need for this whole discussion when it is one single editor, once again, going WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.  I think this editor is bullying Dana, and also attacking me because I'm calling him on it.  Montanabw(talk) 03:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The fact that an editor makes edits to Wikipedia out of spite, rather than a desire to improve the encyclopaedia, is not irrelevant here. However, I note another hesitant attempt at an apology, although instantly negated by yet further personal remarks, which you are invited to retract forthwith, and in any case within 24 hours. In the interest of reconciliation, I invite you to list on your talkpage all of my "multiple vicious and insulting comments" and other attacks directed at you; I undertake to review them, and apologise if and where I see fit. If you happen to find that there are in fact none, then kindly retract that slur also. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, JLAN, you clearly are now being quite spiteful, and you are the single most mean-spirited, insulting and spiteful wikipedia editor I have come across to date, so look in the mirror before you ask anyone else to apologize to you.  And please, first, apologize to Dana for your disrespect to someone who has yet to speak an ill word to you.  It has been her leadership on articles such as Haflinger, Percheron, Andalusian horse and now this one that you have systematically attacked with spiteful remarks and minimal actual useful material (Perhaps one in 10 of your suggestions is worthwhile, I shall grant you that).  Then you can apologize to me for all your various mean-spirited editing and tendentious arguments, templating and general comments that you think everyone other than yourself is stupid.  In my view, it is clearly YOU who have no desire to improve these articles, my assessment of your behavior is that you only want to push your POV and win.  (I do, quite often, revise my views on matters when presented with proper evidence instead of bullying)  In my view, it is you who refuse to listen to anyone else, and I'm not going to waste my time talking to a wall.  I would say, however, that  if you don't consider a comment like "|the usual blithering twaddle, made up yesterday by someone with insufficient education to see how silly it is.]" to be an insult, then we have nothing further to discuss.  I lost my temper at you a few days ago and used a term that was not suitable for the wikipedia community which I refractored out of my respect for the wikipedia community as a whole.  However, I am not going to apologize to you for telling the truth. Montanabw(talk) 19:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm uninvolved here and I don't know anything about horses, (though I do live down the street from someone who owns a number of horses) but I think the relevant guidelines here are WP:WEIGHT and maybe WP:DETAIL. Basically, the article should give each aspect of the topic a roughly similar portion of the article as the most reliable sources covering the topic do. Trivial or obscure aspects of the topic shouldn't be given a large part of the article's real estate. To me, it looks like the large tables are probably an unnecessary amount of detail for this article. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
In my view, to be totally frank, the chart's an eyesore and goes into unnecessary detail. I think it should go. And with regard to that comment "the usual blithering twaddle, made up yesterday by someone with insufficient education to see how silly it is", that really just goes to illustrate for how long JLAN's been aggressive and belittling to other editors. Horsey people have been using "hands high" for a very long time; certainly at least since I was a very young child.  You don;t need to have "scholarly references" for the common use of this term - it's been appearing in children's pony stories at least since the Pullein-Thompson sisters' books, which started in the 1940's. JLAN, people are just getting really tired of you being so constantly argumentative, and appearing to think that you know best about everything, and nobody else's view is worth a bean.  It's been going on for far, far too long now; frankly I'm surprised that nobody's filed an RfC/U yet. Please, just give it a rest, now. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Just as a historical point of reference, "hands" was used officially by the U.S. Army to measure horse height at least as far back as early 1800s. I'm not sure why this has to keep coming up. And I concur that the table is a waste of space for something like this.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm also uninvolved, though I know enough about horses to not tell people to "reign it in" and when they (horses, not people) go to a canter, try to tuck your shoulder in and roll when you come off. The tables are clunky and disrupt the article flow, at the very least they should be in a section at the bottom. Even there, that is an awful lot of weight given to very minor details. Perhaps a separate article giving a reconciliation of the breed recognition rules between Mexican and US registries would be useful? There's no particular need to throw the work away, but neither is there a need to add it to a GA-class article. Franamax (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Hands was used as a unit of measurement at least as far back as Henry VIII's various Acts on horses - off the top of my head, 1535 and 1540, where it was decreed that stallions under 15 hands and mares under 13 hands weren't allowed (I think) to run on the commons, and young colts of two years old but under 11.2 hands weren't allowed to run out with mares. He would clearly have been using the measurement understood at the time, but I think that the Acts themselves would be RS for the fact that it was definitely the standard unit of measurement for the horse used at the time.  Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


### Formal apology
In the light of the criticism above of my description of a reference in Summerhays' Encyclopaedia for Horsemen (1975) as "the usual blithering twaddle, made up yesterday by someone with insufficient education to see how silly it is", I would like formally to apologise to Stella A. Walker, editor of that edition, and indeed to the late R. S. Summerhays himself. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the point here.  I'm going to WP:AGF and choose to believe that what you've just done here was not intended to be as sarcastic and pointy as it reads, i.e. that you're not offering an apology to anybody else.  Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I think JLAN and I understand each other perfectly.  Perhaps a sandbox created on totally neutral turf would be a good place for both of us to go play, as we appear to have mutually ordered each other off our own talk pages.  Montanabw(talk) 16:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I propose rewording the Uses section as follows, in order to include the primary use and other material relevant to the Mexican breed in its home country:

The Azteca horse was bred specifically for use in the national sport of Mexico, charrería, to which it is perfectly suited. It is ideal for rejoneo or mounted bull-fighting; the rejoneador Pablo Hermosa de Mendoza  has used horses of this breed both in Europe and in the Americas. It is also used for alta escuela or classical dressage, for polo, for doma clásica or dressage, as a police horse, and for traditional activities such as doma vaquera and working equitation, la garrocha or exhibition riding with the long lance used in acoso y derribo, baile or horse-dancing, fiestas and parades. The Azteca horse may also be used for driving, in western riding events such as reining, cutting, team penning and roping, and for pleasure riding.

Would that be acceptable to others? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) See below for both this and the other.  Montanabw(talk) 21:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to propose the following revised wording for the lead section, with the aim of reducing the current undue weight on the American variant of this breed, and making it clear that while similar, it is distinct.

The Azteca is a breed of horse from Mexico. It is the first horse to have been created there, and was purpose-bred for the Mexican national sport, charrería, as a replacement for the Mexican Criollo horse, whose numbers had seriously declined during the Mexican revolution. It is a well-muscled horse that may be of any solid color, and was developed in Mexico from 1969 by cross-breeding of Andalusian, American Quarter Horse and Mexican Criollo bloodlines. The studbook is jointly held by the Mexican government and the Azteca breeders association.
A similar but distinct breed, the American Azteca, is registered by two associations in the United States. Both permit the addition of American Paint Horse blood, and pinto coat colors.
Would that be acceptable to other editors? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No changes to the lead. Distinguishing the "American Azteca" as a separate breed is OR, it's just a different registry, though with consensus it would be OK to note that the American registries allows APHA breeding (which is, basically, Quarter Horse breeding anyway, so there is no real distinction in the underlying bloodlines, only registry politics)  No evidence that Charreria is the national sport of Mexico, "perfect" and "ideal are peacock terms, and someone other than myself needs to review the sources for their compliance with the GA standard.  But maybe, if there is consensus that the material is not UNDUE and conforms to the GA standard.  And sort of like Percherons barrel racing, just because they can in theory do it, doesn't mean they should -- find one example of an Azteca doing a good job at polo (I doubt it, wrong body build), team penning, or roping (maybe, but show me photos), and I shall reconsider such claims.  However, you want to propose changes that improve the article, then please agree to get rid of stupid chart and allow a reword to the last stable version (where Dana agreed to some of your edits) before we move forward and add yet more material.  Montanabw(talk) 21:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Protection template is off. Overwhelming consensus is to remove the charts, so I did so.  I restored the material on the American Azteca registry as no consensus to create a content fork.  I kept JLAN's material on the Mexican registry standard.  Dana, will you review my edits and see if this keeps things at the GA standard you so painstakingly worked for? It is my intent that just the charts were tossed, all other material on both sides of the dispute was kept, with some very minor copyediting to enhance clarity.  Montanabw(talk) 21:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agree that consensus was to ditch the charts; I've put them here in case (which I doubt) anyone wants to see them. They are not published in English anywhere else as far as I can see. I've added the suggested Uses section, I hope w/o peacock terms. The uses are all referenced to either the AMCCRA, the Alta Escuela Mexicana, or to Dutson. The lead section still needs attention IMO. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The charts should not have been put in their own article - it's a content fork. The consensus was that the charts be tossed altogether, not given their own article. Definitely not a notable subject for its own article. I haven't had a chance to look at the changes to the article in the past couple of days - I've been off-WP, and honestly, the bickering and tendentious editing seen here is really sapping my interest and enthusiasm for the project. Come on, JLAN, you know better than to create content forks with non-notable material!!!! Dana boomer (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
If a sub-article expands on summary information in the parent article, it's not a content fork, it's a {{details}} - so long as the sub-article doesn't start covering additional topics from the parent. My suggestion above to put the tables into their own article was to use that article to compare and contrast the breed standards between countries. The Mexican standard seems to differ from the AAHIA [2] in that it allows more combinations. I find that interesting, and it could be expanded with info about how/why the differences exist. That (IMO) keeps the main article clean and still expands coverage. And of course, the sub-article will still use hands as the primary unit of measurement, right? Franamax (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec with Amatulic below) I just don't think that the breeding charts are notable enough for their own article. The Mexican standard uses crosses from three breeds (Criollo, Quarter Horse and Andalusian), and then gives the crosses alphabetical names (Azteca A, Azteca B, etc), depending on the percentages of the various breeds. The American registry uses four breeds (Criollo, Quarter Horse, Andalusian and Paint) and does essentially the same thing. Its combinations of the same 3/4 breeds, just differentiations based on percentages. This is explained (or at least it used to be) in the article - we just didn't have the charts. I have no problem with this information being in the article - it's just that having the charts in there makes it way too much detail. We can say "The Mexican registry separates horses into x number of categories, based on the percentages of blood from the three parent breeds. The American registry separates horses into y number of categories, based on the percentages of blood from the four parent breeds." There's no need to give the specific percentages of blood and every possible combination - it's way too much information for the general reader. This article is not too long. The information can be given here - in prose. It's the visual ugly-ness and TMI of the charts that we are protesting to. Dana boomer (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Admin comment: Because that new article is a possibly copyright violation of the cited source and consensus appeared to be to remove it, I have userfied that page to User:Justlettersandnumbers/Cross-breeding tables for the Azteca horse. Something like that doesn't belong in main space as a stand-alone article. I'll add that it's always good practice, if you want to preserve material that would be removed from an article, to save it in your own user space. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Second admin comment: agree with userfying, at least until it can be exapnded as I was suggesting. Disagree with doing it because it's a possible copyvio, I nuke those from whatever space I find them in. However I don't think the info is copyrightable, as no creativity is involved in reciting a simple list of facts. If it was a fancy flowchart or presented in a non-standard way, then maybe yes, but it's really just a plain comprehensive list. All seems good for now... Franamax (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Well I wish you could all make your minds up. I followed a suggestion from an editor whose opinion I respect. If that was wrong or it was a copyvio or a content fork or just too much information for the general reader, whoever or whatever that may be, I apologise. I don't see that the material is of any conceivable use to me or to anyone else in my user space, and have db-ed it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the whole point of userfying is to say "this information is of no use to anyone right now the way it stands, but could be made so, so we'll put it in your user-space so you can polish it up and ask other editors for advice on it". We don't like to throw things away if we can salvage them, and I've made lots of edits in other people's userfied pages to help get an article ready for prime time. But of course it's your own choice to have your own work permanently deleted. Franamax (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
JLAN, please seek consensus on your edits.  When you make solid suggestions, they are adopted.  When you make suggestions and consensus goes against you, Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.  Montanabw(talk) 23:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Azteca horse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.caballoazteca.org/IMG/doc/Esquema_OFICIAL_de_cruzamiento_AMCCRA.doc
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.caballoazteca.org/spip.php?article3
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110623022542/http://www.caballoazteca.org/ to http://www.caballoazteca.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)