148.63.20.196

October 2018

Hello, I'm Justlettersandnumbers. I noticed that you recently removed content from Maronesa without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Sorry, but your talk page is a kind of a mess and filled with (loads) of complains...

It would be decent if you stop spamming this wiki page with that historical crossbreeding non sense based on who knows what evidence. The same for that «translocation» joke from 1993 that presumably support crossbreeding (paragraph appeared cut so it is not a valuable source). If you notice well, the more recent 1998 study doesn´t support any crossbreeding and the 2004 study only says that Maronesa is more closely related with Barrosa than with the other breeds (the ones used on the study). Which again, doesn´t imply that Maronesa comes from that Barrosa/Mirandesa crossbreeding non sense or even that Maronesa is closely related with Barrosa at all.

It´s ok though if you think that the uruz project reference is not reliable... I corrected it, but you can replace it again with the «unreliable», so sorry for that. The Tauros programme reference is reliable though and everyone can see Maronesa next to other breeds and to one aurochs type reconstruction (Scandinavian), so it´s clear as water.

Ah, thinking better, you complained that «Portugal resident» news may be not reliable, because they don´t show any expertise on cattle or agriculture subjects (regarding the uruz project subject) and seem directed to foreign students (??) but yet yourself used this reference to speak about the Maronesa fall in numbers: http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/marones-cattle-breeders-halved-in-a-decade/29172 Since when Portugal news is more reliable than Portugal resident news? Portugal news are cattle/farming/agriculture experts or have shown proof to be more reliable on that?

Also why you often quote info directly from the Maronesa cattle association official page?? Isn´t that using «own work» references? A very brief comparison with the aurochs is made there (based on phenotypical traits), maybe we should use it too, right?? Since you seem so fond on using the Maronesa cattle association page... Oh wait, that´s not convenient, right?

And just as curiosity: there is more than 1 Maronesa wiki page version. Some even run as a video on youtube with the old version content that you tried to destroy (and many cattle sites still use it as reference).

Still, just let me tell you this: before you vandalize a page (this one) that you didn´t created, please first question its content before delete anything.

The place to discuss this is the talk-page of the article. You should stop removing referenced content from the page until and unless consensus is reached. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

---