User talk:UnderEducatedGeezer

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject!
Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:
 * Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
 * You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
 * We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
 * We write for a general audience. Every reader should be able to understand anatomical articles, so when possible please write in a simple form—most readers do not understand anatomical jargon. See this essay for more details.

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of science fiction novels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Brunner ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_science_fiction_novels check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_science_fiction_novels?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

IDs
If you want to ask for a novel ID, I recommend trying on the reference desk, or maybe StackExchange. (There's also rec.arts.sf.written, but Usenet is pretty moribund these days.) DS (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

July 2020
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Eugene, Oregon, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I don't understand why you reverted my addition of Eugene being half-way between Washington State & California, and I'm not sure how to ask you why on your Talk page, so I put my question here & hope that I have Pinged you so you could see it. I came to the Eugene article from a report on CNN about Eugene replacing some of the police with a group of mental health workers, CAHOOTS, and wasn't certain where Eugene is. So I looked at the wiki entry, and didn't know where the 'verdant' Willamette Valley was, so I googled some maps and saw that Eugene is half way between Washington and California, so I added that fact, thinking that if I hadn't know where it was, perhaps others looking at the article might not also. How was that not constructive? What was wrong with that?. UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your question. Wikipedia publishes facts paraphrased, summarized, or quoted from independent, reliable, secondary sources. You wrote, "I googled some maps and saw that Eugene is half way between Washington and California, so I added that fact", which constitutes original research. If instead you had found a reliable source that reported Eugene's location as you described it, and had included a citation to that source, anyone would have been able to verify it. Please review Wikipedia's core content policies that we editors are expcted to observe. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I looked at the existing citation (a Google map) for the section of text I added to (the second sentence in the lead), and I don't see how all that information currently there in the article is any more referenced by a Google map than what I added. What I mean is, the description of Willamette Valley being 'verdant', and the distance of Eugene from the coast are no more evident from the map without actions amounting to 'original research' (ie. looking at the map) than is the statement 'half-way between Washington and California', right? In fact, 'verdant' is not actually evident in any way I can see from that referenced map, at all. I do at least minimally understand and pretty much totally respect the need for facts paraphrased, summarized, or quoted from independent, reliable, secondary sources, but I don't see how the previous/existing text in the second sentence is any more justifiably derived from that referenced map than my statement about 'half-way-between'. And since my statement is no less justifiably derived from that reference map than the existing statements, then my statement should still be as allowed as the others already there, by dint of the already referenced map. How not? UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again, . The WP Manual of Style says of citations in the lead paragraph, Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.
 * First, I reverted your edit because you provided no citation to a reliable source. When you explained you had looked at the map, I realized you had estimatd, not very accurately. Measuring the map (and using the key) cited in the lead of the Eugene article does show Eugene to be about 50 miles from the coast as the crow flies. If you measure with a ruler, the map shows Eugene about 120 miles south of the Washington border and 175 mile north of California, which is clearly not equidistant or half way between the borders. Your edit based on eyeballing the map (your original research) was factually inaccurate, which illustrates why WP relies on reliable sources that have formal fact-checking processes. At any rate, the map is useful to you and other readers for visual confirmation of the relative location of Eugene, and readers can draw their own conclusions from the map. That's not original research on their part. If, as a reader, you want to think of Eugene as half way between the border of Washington State and California, that doesn't matter to me, or Wikipedia. But as an editor, your job is to accurately cite relaiable sources for verifiability. The claim that Eugene is "about 50 miles" from the Oregon Coast is supported by the map, but your claim is not.
 * Second, the phrase "verdant Willamette Valley" is not controversial, and falls under WP:SKYBLUE, not requiring a citation. Google the phrase "verdant Willamette Valley" to find multiple sources and even a book published by Oregon State University under that title-- the valley is verdant because prevailing winds carry precipitation from the Pacific Ocean up and over the Coast Range, dumping lots of rain in the valley, making our trees and agricultural farms very green, or verdant. If you have ever heard that westrn Oregon is a rainy place, it's not controversial, only logical, to call the valley green... Cheers! − Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, then if I change my addition to follow the now current & apparently acceptable distance description of Eugene, currently being "...about 50 miles (80 km) east of the Oregon Coast.", so that my addition would read (adding at the beginning of that second sentence), "It is about halfway between Washington and California,...", would that seem acceptable to you? And btw, when I look at the referenced map, while I do get 120 mi from Eugene to Washington border (as you do), but from the California border, I get 145.46, approximately, using dividers from screen transferred distances and scale indicator of 20mi. (7 x 20miles = 140, plus ~3 2/3 of 20, 5.46, ~=145.46, which is not as different from halfway as your measurements would suggest (mine:145 & 120, vs your:175 & 120). So 'about halfway' should suffice with regard to the existing map citation for my desired prependation to that sentence, yes?  UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the description is fine as it is. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Allegory of Inclination, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oeuvre. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)