Talk:Lusitano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. Preferred photos show the complete animal, head to tail. Additional photos should add information, such as a face-only shot or distinct coat color or texture variants. Please do not include restricted copyright or "fair use" images.

"They also have a more sloping croup and higher-set tail, as well as straighter shoulders than the Andalusian". I belive a Lusitano with the more sloping croup have a lower-set tail than the P.R.E?

Comment by IMH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.65.228.236 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Added photo samples

I included photos to a sample of a bloodless bullfight and the coloring of a buckskin Lusitano --Webmistress Diva 19:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

The link that points to the bullfighting horses is just as important as the other links that are on here already. Also, the other links are more business links. The bloodless bullfighting link shows the different breeds of bullfighting horses, which includes a Lusitano.

Really, why are so many "wiki" users eager to go around removing items that don't pertain to them?--Webmistress Diva 04:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the bloodless bullfight site is a reference to the point made in the article about "bullfighting" horses.

And if you look at the Rainey Valley site, it straight-up says "Stallion Services". But you know, I am not the type who will go around removing links because I feel like it.--Webmistress Diva 04:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Link Proposal

This page needs to have this external link to Official site for Bloodless Bullfighting Horses in California...Portuguese Style! because (1)it has information, videos, and images to show what a bloodless bullfighting horse is and what they do. The site is in English but can also be translated in other languages too. This site does not have any type of obscene and obvious advertising nor does it "self-promote". It is purely informational.

If this site gets removed, then the other sites should be excluded as well. Removing this site was a "bad edit" and can be considered as "vandalism" made by the users who either removed it and/or had them removed... not just here, but on other articles as well.

It's NOT a "spam" link, because "true spams" are created by nuisance robots automatically generating their codes and would therefore include their "spammed" item on every page on this site.

I am NOT a spammer, I'm only documenting and stating true facts. If nobody on Wikipedia honors this request, then that means Wikipedia is not interested in the truth.

And for all those who "think" that I am promoting myself, why don't you take a good look at the real definition of what "self-promotion" means....

"self-pro·mo·tion (sělf'prə-mō'shən)

n. Promotion, including advertising and publicity, of oneself effected by oneself: A television talk show is an excellent vehicle for self-promotion."

So with that, I am not including, advertising, nor am I publishing myself. I don't recall writing about "me" in any of the articles that I've written or contributed to. The only thing I've done is directed an article to a link that would "benefit" people to get more and read further. Additional information that is not included in the article itself, such as videos and images.

This information will be included in ALL of the articles "Talk Page" that I've either started or contributed to. It will request the particular link related to that article.

Per the "Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_be_considered" guidelines of Wikipedia, here's a section of what backs up my request, namely what is marked in "bold"

3.1 What should be linked

1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.

2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.

3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

3.2 Links to be considered

1. For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews.

2. A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories.

3. Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.

As per the section Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_oneself

1.7 Citing oneself

You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia.

• With regards to this, our site is a reliable resource because we include information from sources other than ours, which are very reliable too. And how is one "regarded" as a reliable source? Wouldn't your peers, or let's say the statistics of a website make it a "reliable" source?

One could say that Wikipedia is a "reliable source". But one could also challenge it and say it is NOT. The only difference between this site and ours or any other website is this.... Wikipedia has a ton of rules and guidelines, along with loop holes that everyone must abide by or you get slapped with ridiculous amounts of violations.... from editors that are not "wiki-admins". On individual sites, the rules are set only for outsiders and not for the publisher (unless it's a blog or forum). I know what my rules are and I make sure that I give credit where credit is due. I am anal to the point of copyright violations of my creative work as well as others. But we are also NOT perfect, but we try and will correct mistakes we find (if any).

Yeah, I know, all this just for an external link. But it seems the only way of avoiding conflict from people who are "KIA's" (Know it All's). There are "trolls" who thrive on removing people's item(s) and edit the heck out of an article or an image because they think they know the subject so well when sometimes they don't. They can be referred as "bad edits", which can be translated as "vandalism". These people know who I am talking about. There are also those that are "abusive" to "Wiki-Nubians", or just plain abusive in their mannerisms and can't help but be a pain in the butt. What's funny or ironic is this.... while these so called "experts" that are going around slapping people with citations on what they can or cannot do, along with editing, and most are very rude, they themselves should be slapped back with "Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing" and disruptive behaviours, along with a "vandalism" bot. There is no "Wiki-love" shown with their actions. Remember, a good "newbie" will never attack .... only when provoked or attacked first due to frustration level. Of course, this excludes the obvious nuisances.

Ok, on that note, I am going to leave this on all the "Talk Pages" where I see fit.
I sure hope that better and friendlier attitudes (like Montanabw and MartinDK) are seen in the new year. Sincerely, Mz. --Webmistress Diva 17:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)