User talk:Geogene

Why was my contribution deleted? It was about cats striking fear into their prey. Please explain. The article without my paragraph strongly suggests that cats are unique in striking fear into prey and therefore that cats are evil. The paragraph I added puts cats in perspective, showing that they are not unique because all predators, even humans, induce fear in prey animals. You always delete my edits such that it is pointless trying to make the page better than just the c-rated and biased article it is. We will have to have a wider discussion about this article and why it is impossible to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xhkvfq (talk • contribs) 18:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the article talk page [1]. Geogene (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pitbulls

You appear to be in a very tiring discussion on pitbulls. I think you are almost totally in the right, but dealing with editors who have very strong pro-breed biases. All users have biases, and there is nothing wrong with that, and they are likely to be attracted to the pages which focus on their biases. This is why we have RfCs. Depending on how many users your post on RSN attracts, it may be necessary to open an RfC on this topic. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. Note that the only objective to that RSNB was to basically force opposition to accept that sources they don't like aren't automatically unreliable. Now they've been told that by neutral editors, but will there be an improvement in behavior? In any case, multiple RfCs are probably inevitable. There'll be more clarity with the page protection expires soon. If you're interested in the subject, you should watch the page. Geogene (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could do it as a Version A vs Version B RfC by making an edit and self-reverting. Then putting the two version to RfC. The question is whether the pit-bull brigade will be enough to swing any RfC, in which case its better to go issue by issue.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson artifacts

Pretty sure the link was to a debunking article, I know the author Doug Weller talk 19:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I was reading the diff correctly, the link was already there and the addition was the text, However, its claims that the metallurgic growth on the items would have taken no less than five decades to grow meaning their age proves they could not have been faked in 1924 as the texts they were supposedly taken from would not have been available to local residents in the 1870’s or before. This looked to me like it was endorsing the fringe caliche argument, and opposing Colavito's attribution of the text to being a mishmash of Cicero from the Tucson Public Library. Geogene (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missed this, will look tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source doesn't match "However, its claims that the metallurgic growth on the items would have taken no less than five decades to grow meaning their age proves they could not have been faked in 1924 as the texts they were supposedly taken from would not have been available to local residents in the 1870’s or before" - added by an IP on Thursday. Shall I just remove that text leaving the rest? Doug Weller talk 08:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Geogene (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]