User contributions for Geogene

Search for contributionsshowhide

⧼contribs-top⧽

Username, IP address or CIDR range:

Namespace:

Invert selection

Associated namespace

Tag filter:

Invert selection

Only show edits that are latest revisions

Only show edits that are page creations

Hide minor edits

⧼contribs-date⧽

From date:

To date:

Show only edits pending review

Hide probably good edits

22:0422:04, 11 December 2025 diff hist −1 Meteorite No edit summary current Tag: Manual revert

20:4920:49, 10 December 2025 diff hist −4 Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Delete link through a re-direct; if you want to link to the Air India crash, then find a source and link there directly Tag: Manual revert
20:4620:46, 10 December 2025 diff hist −134 Air India Flight 171 →Aircraft and route: delete unsourced trivia Tag: Manual revert

07:0607:06, 5 December 2025 diff hist +51 Trap–neuter–return →Public opinion: convert close paraphrase to a quote current
05:2005:20, 5 December 2025 diff hist +596 Talk:Feral cat →This article is a Mess: Reply current Tag: Reply

20:4220:42, 3 December 2025 diff hist −1 Talk:Feral cat →This article is a Mess: ce
20:4020:40, 3 December 2025 diff hist +233 Talk:Feral cat →This article is a Mess: ce, add study on pro-TNR media bias
20:0820:08, 3 December 2025 diff hist +2,279 Talk:Feral cat →This article is a Mess: Reply Tag: Reply

21:0721:07, 5 November 2025 diff hist +31 User talk:Geogene WP:BAIT
17:1017:10, 5 November 2025 diff hist +228 User talk:Geogene Reply Tag: Reply

05:5605:56, 4 November 2025 diff hist −996 Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard →Earthquake light, Round Two: I will hold this post in abeyance, since it looks like they plan on restoring a version containing that soon Tag: Manual revert
04:1904:19, 4 November 2025 diff hist +996 Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard →Earthquake light, Round Two: Reply Tags: Reverted Reply
00:0900:09, 4 November 2025 diff hist +36 Talk:Earthquake light →Mass poorly explained removals: grumble grumble
00:0800:08, 4 November 2025 diff hist +278 Talk:Earthquake light →Mass poorly explained removals: Reply Tag: Reply

23:4723:47, 3 November 2025 diff hist −3,420 Earthquake light →History and background: No discussion took place about restoring content other than NATGEO. Per ONUS, demonstrate consensus before restoring disputed content. Tags: Manual revert Reverted
23:4423:44, 3 November 2025 diff hist +397 Talk:Earthquake light →Mass poorly explained removals: Reply Tag: Reply
20:2520:25, 3 November 2025 diff hist +739 Talk:Earthquake light →Mass poorly explained removals
19:3419:34, 3 November 2025 diff hist +602 Talk:Earthquake light →Mass poorly explained removals: Reply Tag: Reply
13:2513:25, 3 November 2025 diff hist +102 Talk:Earthquake light →Mass poorly explained removals
13:2213:22, 3 November 2025 diff hist +409 Talk:Earthquake light →Mass poorly explained removals: Reply Tag: Reply

23:1523:15, 2 November 2025 diff hist +375 Talk:Earthquake light →Mass poorly explained removals: more background on "Freund physics"
21:0421:04, 2 November 2025 diff hist +1,161 Talk:Earthquake light →Mass poorly explained removals: Reply Tag: Reply
18:2118:21, 2 November 2025 diff hist +442 Talk:Earthquake light →Mass poorly explained removals: Reply Tag: Reply
18:1718:17, 2 November 2025 diff hist −9,802 Earthquake light Undid revision 1320082113 by Very Polite Person (talk). WP:ONUS Tags: Undo Reverted
17:3117:31, 2 November 2025 diff hist +414 Talk:Earthquake light →Mass poorly explained removals: Reply Tag: Reply
17:2017:20, 2 November 2025 diff hist +403 Talk:Earthquake light →Mass poorly explained removals: Reply Tag: Reply
17:0217:02, 2 November 2025 diff hist +278 Talk:Earthquake light →Mass poorly explained removals: add
16:5816:58, 2 November 2025 diff hist +152 Talk:Earthquake light →Mass poorly explained removals: Reply Tag: Reply
16:5116:51, 2 November 2025 diff hist −1,456 Earthquake light →Types: More primary-sourced pro-fringe content, largely debunked by the Skeptical Inquirer source. If you want to explain how something works in WP:VOICE, use a textbook or a review article for that, not a primary paper Tag: Reverted
16:4816:48, 2 November 2025 diff hist −4,926 Earthquake light →History and background: NatGeo is not a reliable source; it's primary and pro-fringe. Also removing cherry picked opinions from 50 year old papers Tag: Reverted
16:4616:46, 2 November 2025 diff hist −3,420 Earthquake light Undid revision 1320080711 by Very Polite Person (talk) "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." WP:ONUS Tags: Undo Reverted
16:3616:36, 2 November 2025 diff hist −3,420 Earthquake light →History and background: delete pro-fringe, WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources with no analysis Tag: Reverted
16:3116:31, 2 November 2025 diff hist +344 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard →USGS vs. National Geographic at Earthquake light: Reply Tag: Reply

04:4304:43, 31 October 2025 diff hist +607 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard →USGS vs. National Geographic at Earthquake light: Skeptical Inquirer may be the only reliable secondary source in that article
04:2804:28, 31 October 2025 diff hist −8 Earthquake light the USGS source said that geophysicists don't agree whether EQLs exist, so no need to act like it's just the scientific skeptics, whose POVs are currently quarantined at the end of the article
04:2504:25, 31 October 2025 diff hist +24 Earthquake light →History and background: curiously, the editors who are ultra-critical of scientific skeptics as sources don't seem to mind that we're citing a book by spies and diplomats. See: Warnings (book)
04:2104:21, 31 October 2025 diff hist +18 Earthquake light →Criticism: "Writer" is needlessly vague, he's a skeptic and UFO debunker
04:1904:19, 31 October 2025 diff hist −3 Earthquake light →Criticism: let's try a wording that isn't pejorative toward scientific skeptics. "Framing" is an ugly word in rhetoric. Was "not proven" the most significant criticism Sheaffer presented, or is this a watered down summary?

18:5518:55, 28 October 2025 diff hist +680 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard →USGS vs. National Geographic at Earthquake light: Reply Tag: Reply
18:4418:44, 28 October 2025 diff hist +356 User talk:Very Polite Person →DYK for Abigail Becker: RSNB notice
18:4218:42, 28 October 2025 diff hist +1 m Talk:Earthquake light →What secondary sources do we have of geologists and SMEs who dispute EQL: thread
18:4218:42, 28 October 2025 diff hist +219 Talk:Earthquake light →What secondary sources do we have of geologists and SMEs who dispute EQL
18:4118:41, 28 October 2025 diff hist +4 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard →USGS vs. National Geographic at Earthquake light
18:4118:41, 28 October 2025 diff hist +5,135 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard →USGS vs. National Geographic at Earthquake light: new section Tags: Disambiguation links added New topic
18:0618:06, 28 October 2025 diff hist +1,667 Talk:Earthquake light →What secondary sources do we have of geologists and SMEs who dispute EQL: Reply Tag: Reply

16:5716:57, 27 October 2025 diff hist +181 Earthquake light fix USGS reference
16:5416:54, 27 October 2025 diff hist −72 Earthquake light Restore the quoted version of the USGS, the previous attempt at paraphrasing it was inadequate
16:5216:52, 27 October 2025 diff hist +2 Earthquake light Restore the USGS summary to the lead, it is the best source in the article, and it establishes that not all geophysicists believe that stuff

01:1701:17, 25 October 2025 diff hist −42 m Talk:Earthquake light →Canadian 65 seems fine
01:1101:11, 25 October 2025 diff hist +68 Talk:Earthquake light →Canadian 65 seems fine: add

11 December 2025

10 December 2025

5 December 2025

3 December 2025

5 November 2025

4 November 2025

3 November 2025

2 November 2025

31 October 2025

28 October 2025

27 October 2025

25 October 2025