Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:04, 28 May 2023

Just have to say

Thanks for teaching me about Sirocco. How happy he looked. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon

I don't know if this is of any use to you Breeding Contempt - WSJ (archive.is), Review: ‘Pit Bull’ Traces Path From Fighter to Pet to Demon - The New York Times (archive.org), Pit bull author’s critics are off the leash – Shaffer | News & Observer (archive.org) Dwanyewest (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Do you know how[REDACTED] usually handles archived webpages or webpages behind paywall in citations? I'd really like to include these somehow but the original page still links to articles behind paywall. I think I've seen some articles include the archive link within the actual citation. PartyParrot42 (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Internet Archive or archive.today are good places to get pass most paywalled articles. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks I think we now have good source coverage on the Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon page, at least for the current revision. PartyParrot42 (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Whataboutism

Some of the arguments on that page have it exactly backwards. Otherwise reliable sources don't become unreliable solely because they cite Dogsbite.org, Dogsbite.org becomes reliable on a very limited, context-specific basis for that fact when reliable sources cite it. The principle is WP:USEBYOTHERS. This has been endlessly, and I would say disruptively argued on that talkpage in the past. Geogene (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Judging by skimming all the archived Talk pages it's pretty clear there are two individuals that are being rather disruptive and not interacting genuinely on the arguments 😉 PartyParrot42 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Judging by your lack of objectivity and intellectual honesty. Its clear you have a bias you are unable to break free from. Quit wasting my time appearing like you're objective and just be honest.

And using the WP:USEBYOTHERS to hide behind the fact that the source is a self-published website that's data collection is suspect at best is clearly showing you accept the WP guidelines that help you and discredit the ones that hurt your argument.

The Nanny Dog myth is widely stated, so it must be reputable!!! lmao Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, responding to you saying "there are two individuals that are being rather disruptive and not interacting genuinely on the arguments" by stating you yourself are not interacting honestly, is somehow an insult? Then who insulted who first I ask? I'd argue that 2 people have opinions and stating those opinion isn't an insult, but your welcome to be insulted. If you wish to speak about it, please keep it here and not pit bulls talk page. If you don't wish to talk about it, then so be it. Unbiased6969 (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said who the two individuals were. Why do you assume you are one of them?

Please stop with the WP:NOPA, both on my page and the pit bull talk page. PartyParrot42 (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Wonder who you and Geogene both disagree with, that also is the person who you accused of "whataboutism", which is the title of this section. What evidence would anyone ever have that you were referring to me at all. Its mystifying why anyone with a brain would ever think you were talking about that specific person.

Not an insult champ. Read WP:NOPA to learn what a PA is. WP:DR if you feel differently. If you want me to stop responding, maybe don't end it with a question to me. Unbiased6969 (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely was not talking about you in "those two individuals." You're not the only one engaged in edit wars and personal attacks. You just engaged in this thread assuming we're talking about you, which is telling.

And of course I've read WP:NOPA. Stop being rude and attacking me for not reading something just because I disagree with you on the subject. You have done this before on the Pit bull talk page, after I had discussed the paper in detail: "You were the one that cited the study... I don't think its unreasonable for me to expect that you read it and the material presented.... ...but as I mentioned before, maybe you didn't read it" - Unbiased6969 PartyParrot42 (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

What scary is that you believe yourself. At this point, I'm done. Should have been a long time ago. If you feel so strongly that you are right. WP:DR it. I will love to see the outcome. In the future, I hope you are able to recognize your own biases and when they're affecting your judgement. Unbiased6969 (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023