Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

User talk:Geogene

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geogene (talk | contribs) at 16:10, 24 October 2024 (Pitbulls: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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 (talkcontribs) 18:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pit Bull feedback

Hi, I'd love to get your feedback on my latest proposals in the Pit bull talk page. I believe my latest ideas are keeping with the concerns you've raised in your last post, but I haven't received a reply. Thanks. Louiedog (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2024 (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]