User talk:GeeBee60

... a few good links for newcomers:

... If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question ... Again, welcome!--... 03:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

June 2014

In a recent edit to the page Dingle Peninsula, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. --Wavehunter (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...

Is there a way to track my edit comments? I'm not a big contributor, but I have made some "TALK" comments for some topics that I forgot to keep track of. Don't know if tracking individual comments / commentators is easy or hard. Thanks

GeeBee60 (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If you click "Contributions" at the top of the screen, you will get a list of all your contributions in date order. You can use the "Namespace" dropdown to filter it to show only article edits, or only user talk edits, etc; and you can set the search to start at any month and year and go back from there. Experiment with that, and you will probably be able to do what you want. JohnCD (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cuckoo bee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hylaeus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, GeeBee60. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Necro

Please do not necro year-old threads. Ogress 17:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Stinger

Hi, and thanks for your additions to this article. Could I remind you that all claims need to be supported by references to reliable sources. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: You've got messages!

Hello, GeeBee60. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2–3 days of inactivity. Message added by — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, GeeBee60. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

King's Speech article (text) revision

I am a cautious editor who usually only makes changes when clarity is lacking. I also am an intermittent editor so only now did I notice that a change I made to The Kings Speech was immediately undone as "too fussy". So now I offer a different version, with justification, from my read the existing version is unclear -- as written it sounds as though Lionel is encouraging Bertie to disrespect the chair.

STANDING VERSION: Bertie remained unconvinced about his suitability as king but Lionel encouraged Bertie to express his voice by disrespecting King Edward's Chair and the Stone of Scone. Lionel rehearsed Bertie and the coronation ceremony is completed.

MY FIRST VERSION (6 Jan 18) : Bertie remained unconvinced about his suitability as king but Lionel, by disrespecting King Edward's Chair and the Stone of Scone, provoked Bertie into expressing his voice. Lionel rehearsed Bertie and the coronation ceremony is completed.

MY NEW VERSION (22 Feb 18): Bertie remained unconvinced about his suitability as king until provoked into expressing his voice, angered by Lionel's disrespect for King Edward's Chair and the Stone of Scone. Only after this pivotal moment was Bertie able to rehearse with Lionel, and then complete the coronation ceremony.

GeeBee60 (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polygynandry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen (check to confirm | 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) 09:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, although an article about all insect queens might be in order. GeeBee60 (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing about health and medicine

Hey I know you have been around a while but I think you have not edited health/medical content much -- see below, if you like.

Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
We do that by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do. Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources.
Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS; for the difference between primary and secondary sources, see the WP:MEDDEF section.) High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please beware of predatory publishers – check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
We don't use terms like "currently", "recently," "now", or "today". See WP:RELTIME.
More generally see WP:MEDHOW, which gives great tips for editing about health -- for example, it provides a way to format citations quickly and easily
Citation details are important:
- Be sure cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books
- Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article, and please format citations consistently within an article.

– the WikiProject Medicine team Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Jytdog for your concern about this article. If you check the history of Monomelic amyotrophy, most of your concerns predate my contributions. My first contribution to this article was to post "dubious" under Symptoms. Both Cause and Diagnosis sections I wrote based on good sources, but citations take a long time to complete and I decided to first post what I wrote and come back in a couple of days with citations. The exception is that I did not follow full citation protocol with the Talcot article, posted an abbreviated link. Though 14 years old it is frequently cited and I will again cite it, but "correctly" and with multiple others. I have very personal reasons to see that this article is well written and accurate, and I appreciate both your patience and contributions. GeeBee60 (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Using the tool (that is available to everyone in the edit window) described in MEDHOW, it takes a few seconds to make nicely formatted citations - I am not exaggerating! It blew my mind when I understood what that tool does.

We really should be using recent sources. If there is a good reason to use a 14 year old source that should be easy to explain on the talk page. See you there! Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog and others, I have completed some changes to the article on Monomelic Amyotrophy. It still is a "Stub" (regretfully), but at this point I am not going to venture into restoring it to the bigger version of a week ago, with multiple sub headings -- although I am still rereading / ingesting several references more. You are right about how helpful the DOI and PMID links are for writing up references. One ref has about 12 authors, I'm inclined to simplify it down to "main author, et al".

BTW, I continue to like -- and thus reinserted -- one 14 y.o. ref because it is so clearly covers the topic, but it is now one of nine references. THANKS GeeBee60 (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

friendly advice

Thank you very much for your friendly advice regarding draft:medhananda! GoldenerBall GoldenerBall (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Monomelic amyotrophy instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:GeeBee60/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:GeeBee60/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, GeeBee60! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

re: work needed (Medhananda)

Dear GeeBee60, thank your for your advice. As soon as I have carried out the improvements according to your recommendations I will contact you again. Best regards GoldenerBall GoldenerBall (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

MEDRS

about that post at WPMED you need to follow MEDRS for that article or any other(for example one of the references you used was ....

Lai, Vincent; Wong, Yiu Chung; Poon, Wai Lun; Yuen, Ming Keung; Fu, Yat Pang; Wong, Oi Wah (December 2011). "Forward shifting of posterior dural sac during flexion cervical magnetic resonance imaging in Hirayama disease: an initial study on normal subjects compared to patients with Hirayama disease". European Journal of Radiology. 80 (3): 724–728. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.07.021. ISSN 1872-7727. Retrieved 25 May 2018.

...is not a review)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Ozzie10aaaa. This has been a long process and at this point I'm not even sure why I cited that article, it is minor and not that useful. Frankly I have too many references, so if you see a couple more weak ones I probably have room to delete them along with this one. My main concern right now is with strengthening the section on symptoms -- and if you can help I'd be delighted.

This being said, occasional case studies by a skilled researcher are valuable for the in-depth discussion that accompanies the research, with no consideration given to the actual case study part of the paper. I have a couple of studies included for this reason.

Thanks again, GeeBee60 (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

peer review

ok, posted since I edited it as well, someone else needs to look at it, I'm sure you'll get a response soon--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi GeeBee60! You created a thread called feedback on revisions at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Delivered by Muninnbot, an automated account. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

MA

I've been away a week in a place with no WiFi (the horror). Per symptoms, remember the intended audience is not healthcare professionals. If you can describe a few symptoms, in simple terms, with citation(s), go with that. And good luck. My next attempt at raising an article to GA will be vitamin E. Out there in nutritionland there are MANY people with STRONG opinions on what is verifiable/true. David notMD (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

References in Talk

Skylab mutiny?

I'm working on a rewrite of the "Skylab mutiny" article in my user space: User:Ke4roh/Skylab 4 human factors. There's lots of research gone into it thus far, and still more to come. I'm taking into account the lengthy conversation at BLP noticeboard on Skylab Mutiny, and working hard not to do any synthesis of my own, but to present all the information for readers to decide. I think what actually happened will be more clear once I've finished. One of the things I'm hoping we can do is graph the daily work output as reported in mission reports from . Your assistance is welcome. -- ke4roh (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks ke4roh (talk) but ... . With my recent edits to Skylab mutiny as well as William Pogue I wanted to reduce the dramatics of the phrase "Skylab Mutiny", while not go the naive route of "nothing happened". But I'm not up to the task of graphing the daily work output, and I'd be concerned for your work, that it avoids teetering off the Original Research precipice*.

I don't want to delete Skylab mutiny, but rather give the name its place as a bit of journalistic cleverness. Rebellion happened, NASA coped, resented being challenged, and made sure that there would never be a chance to repeat the event.

(*RANT: No Original Research is one of those absurd WP goals that is constantly and unavoidably violated, some Star Trekian Prime Directive that begs our testing.)

GeeBee60 (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm interested that you also worry about original research in this area. While it does require OR to conclude that nothing happened, it does not require OR to lay out a timeline of "days off", workload comments, and the barf incident, all referenced with newspaper articles, and those items specifically included because they're brought up in this context often by several writers, neither does it take OR to lay out the variations in tellings of the "mutiny" story - that Cooper says "end of the 6th week," some say December 27, others December 28, and then HBS tacks on that the radio was off, and someone else offers that the radio was off all day, and yet, we have video of them from that day. My intention is to put all the information in front of the reader and let the reader decide. There certainly is a topic worthy of an article, because there was a lesson about over-programming people and what happens when they reach the breaking point - but when sources can't even agree on when the breaking point was, we just show all those sources. It's absolutely not as clear cut as moon hoax, because the astronauts needed to take time off, and some of the disagreement seems to be over what that should be called - in referreed journals, but there is substantial disagreement in sources favoring "rebellion" or stronger about when they took their day off, that they ignored mission control, and that they were shunned afterward. Have I misinterpreted your concern, or can you articulate it more precisely, please? -- ke4roh (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

My caution to you, ke4roh (talk, is that what you propose, either as a new subsection or as a new article, is ambitious, is not a simple rewrite about the "mutiny", and opens an enormous "can of worms". Why is what you investigate about the workload on Skylab 4 unique to that mission? Do we graph the workload for every mission, and how subjective are the accomplishments from one mission to the next? I think it is ok to acknowledge the ambiguity, a version of Rashamon, or six blind monks, or fog of war, of what happened. Perhaps you can wrap this up more succinctly than I imagine. It seems to me that what you are wading into is more like a Masters Thesis -- and there are alligators in the swamp.

My grumble with WP are over the many layers of interpretation of what IS original research. A huge number of articles are created because of a lot of very hard work and research by the writers. WP needs Original Research IMHO, just not fringe conclusions. I really don't want to go too far off topic, and as you say, this is not like the Moon Hoax.GeeBee60 (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Your comments look much better after a week :) Fortunately, answers to your questions are all available in published literature. If I can find where someone charted (in any form) workload, then I think I'll have something to go with, but a FOIA and combing through daily reports is certainly beyond the scope of my efforts.

While this "incident" is not as clear-cut as moon hoax, it is closest to fog of war. So far as I can tell, Cooper misunderstood what was going on, over-dramatized, and pegged the wrong date "end of the sixth week," for what he calls "rebellion" and "strike". Their first real day off was January 10, best I can tell. And it's pretty clear that 1) they didn't disobey mission control, 2) they didn't turn off the radio for a day, 3) they weren't blacklisted from flying because of it. What we might call their activities on that day off is up for grabs, but everyone who talks about "strike" or "mutiny" cites Cooper or Balbaky who have, according to everyone involved who's said anything about it, embellished liberally. (If you actually try to read Cooper, you'll see it's much like a novel with plenty of mind-reading going on - atypical for a technical subject such as this.) Taken together, our editing guidelines seem to call for 1) not taking a solid stand because otherwise "reliable" sources are in conflict 2) presenting a variety of conflicting sources and 3) presenting relevant information to help the reader reach their own conclusion. -- ke4roh (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you please have another look at User:Ke4roh/Skylab 4 human factors? I think it's nearly ready to replace the existing article, and I value your input before I take that leap. -- ke4roh (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello User talk:Ke4roh. I've looked at your article -- I'd just done so yesterday morning and then got your message, am (re)reviewing your work. You have written a well-crafted piece of journalism, an in-depth study that credibly refutes the more extreme views on the "mutiny" of Skylab 4.

Beyond this, while I have a few edits to offer, I'd first say that with this article, with over 100 references and at least a dozen pages of text (well over 4,000 words), you sell yourself short by publishing in Wikipedia instead of finding a reputable journal for publication. This is not a little rewrite of another article -- very little of its origins remain. Instead this is a new original article, that needs a bit of polishing -- you'd change the title and intro, and maybe a few sentences included verbatim from the earlier "mutiny" text.

Look, I don't have serious credentials in giving publication advice, I might be full of hoohey. Yes I'm something of a space exploration nerd, but my training and work is far removed from that -- fruit, plants, bees, etc., and even there I'm not a published journalist nor a science researcher. I just think that you've put a lot of work in on something new and do you really want it to be ground up by the WP process? Something to consider. BUT, I am working on a rewrite separately, and you can revert what you don't want.

GeeBee60 (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I think. I have considered that publishing the work in some refereed place with assertions I held back for Wikipedia's sake would be beneficial, but that's not my line of work, either. I'd probably have to find a university professor in an appropriate field to advise me to get it published. Space exploration is a hobby of mine, and writing Wikipedia articles is, too, so here we are. I recognize that this one is somewhat more contentious than SA-500D or Lily Flagg, and I suppose I'd be somewhat sad to see it completely shredded on WP, I did set out knowing it wasn't going to be an easy road. Join in! -- ke4roh (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a big project, you've published a number of good articles, you've given this one a lot of thought, and you should proceed as you feel led. There are both academic and non-academic journals (Smithsonian's Air and Space e.g.), but I sense that you are ready to launch now into the great Wiki and let go. Writing articles is exhausting and there is a certain joy to just putting something into the ether and watch what develops.

Visit your talk page User:Ke4roh/Skylab 4 human factors for a few edits and questions as I go through the article more in depth. Best luck, GeeBee60 (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I really liked the idea you proposed and used (adding collapsed tables to solve conflict here). It was creative. ⠀Glosome⠀ 23:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you for you message to the Teahouse about retiring from Wikipedia editing. I visited your userpage, which I think forms a lovely summary of your life, interests and achievements here. I am sorry to learn of your declining health which has forced this situation upon you. It cannot be easy for you, in so many ways, and you have my best wishes. Since you joined us in 2013, you have made over 1,700 edits. So, whilst I can't formally speak on behalf of anyone else, I would nevertheless like to offer a big 'thank you' from Wikipedia, its community of editors and all of its users around the world for your contributions that have helped this encyclopaedia continue to grow and become such an amazing, free resource of knowledge. I believe this barnstar should be given to you from all of us. With the kindest of regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

peer review

BELOW IS a copy of my TEAHOUSE conversation (3 May 2018) for REFERENCE

Related Articles