User talk:Graham Beards/Archives/2014

Crocodilia

I see that you have promoted the article. However I was only about halfway through my review. I suppose that my review was not fast enough for you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, this wasn't clear (at least to me). It would be helpful in future, if you could add the comment "more to follow". You could continue your review on the Talk Page. No article is perfect, and this includes our FAs. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Jimihendrix1969mug.jpg

Sorry, Graham. Normally I would be glad to help you out with this, but lately I've been under fire for reverting people, so I'm choosing my battles. Maybe Doc is right that it should be nomed for deletion. At least then, everyone would be able to make their arguments, and it might get settled once and for all, versus the back-and-forth that I could see developing. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a striking image and all it needs is a stronger fair use rationale imho. It aptly illustrates the gravity of Hendrix's arrest. I did not see its inclusion or exclusion as a barrier to promotion. Well done, by the way. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Re Wells Cathedral FA comments

Can I just make it clear to you, in case you are in any doubt, that your criticisms were both pertinent and valued.

Thank you for pointing out my overuse of phrases beginning with "with". I had not noticed the repetitiousness of it, but it all showed up when I did a count on the word.

My gripe was brought on by the fact that the same individual whose numerous tweaks to the article required extensive correction, then requested that someone else should "tighten" it. So far three people have "tightened" the prose, each time introducing more errors than the process was worth.

I don't know why, given the advanced state of the article,and the FA process, more people don't simply leave the sort of message that you left, which was welcome and brought immediate response.

There are a several other editors who, in the past few days, have applied themselves to correcting things and caused no problems at all.

Amandajm (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

GrahamColm, would you mind casting your eye over the Wells Cathedral article and making whatever comments you consider relevant. I found your observations practical on one hand and insightful on the other. Amandajm (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Any more comments from me would exclude me from closing the FAC (I might have gone too far already). I offer this advice, even our most gifted writers are not the best at judging the quality of their own prose. Graham Colm (talk)

Thank you for both your previous advice and present comment. I agree entirely on, the matter of prose.

On the other hand, I have to be the judge on matters of fact, unless somebody else shows up with more detailed knowledge on the architecture of that building than I have.

Amandajm (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Great minds...

Hi Graham, just promoted one and was about to archive the one you did -- would you like to carry on through the list, because I'm quite happy to work on other things if you're not pressed for time... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I about to leave for work, please carry one. Graham Colm (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

No prob, will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

CMV

It is important to document the inhibition of cytomegalovirus replication by inhibitors of (glucose to fatty acid conversion enzymes) why don't you do it yourself. I am disabled and have very little time. This is what I put: Inhibition of cytomegalovirus replication by inhibitors of (glucose to fatty acid conversion enzymes)

HCMV = human cytomegalovirus

ACC = acetyl-CoA carboxylase (catalyzes the conversion of acetyl-CoA into malonyl-CoA, requires biotin, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Acetyl-CoA_carboxylase)

TOFA = 5-tetradecyloxy-2-furoic acid

C75 = trans-4-carboxy-5-octyl-3-methylene-butyrolactone

FAS = fatty acid synthase

Treatment (10 mg ml-1) with 5-tetradecyloxy-2-furoic acid (TOFA), an ACC inhibitor, resulted in a more than 1000-fold reduction in HCMV replication. C75 (trans-4-carboxy-5-octyl-3-methylene-butyrolactone), an inhibitor of FAS, resulted in a more than 100-fold effect at the same dose enzymes that build fatty acids, acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACC) and fatty acid synthase (FAS)(http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-09/uorm-ead092608.php)

Many viruses, including influenza, HIV and hepatitis, use those same fatty acids to build instead their viral envelopes, outer coatings that help them penetrate human cells.

To investigate whether this requirement extended to other enveloped viruses, the team measured influenza A replication in the presence of the same TOFA and FAS inhibitors, and found similar reductions in replication. Influenza A has little in common with HCMV except for its lipid envelope.

Extensive clinical testing would be needed to draw conclusions about the safety of TOFA and C75, or similar compounds, as antiviral treatment. That said, the team took an early look at toxicity, exposing uninfected fibroblasts to C75 or TOFA for 96 hours. They found that the drugs blocked HCMV replication without causing cell toxicity or self-destruction (apoptosis).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accabin (talk • contribs) 14:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was pasted from here: [1] or here: [2] Please see my comment on your talkpage about copying from other websites. Graham Colm (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

why don't you put this information yourself? It is very important that professionals trying to get information about human cytomegalovirus find the fact about the inhibition of cytomegalovirus replication by inhibitors of (glucose to fatty acid conversion enzymes). This is valid relevant scientific information, that is currently not present, please don't censor it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accabin (talk • contribs) 23:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

important to document the inhibition of cytomegalovirus replication by inhibitors of (glucose to fatty acid conversion enzymes)
http://www.eurekalert.org/ and pubmed are not copyrighted websites, I am including them as reference in the addition I am putting I added content to another article by copying/pasting/summerizing important points from http://www.eurekalert.org/ and included the reference at the end of the article, nobody complained. This is what I am planning to add. Please either add the information yourself or let me do it. If you want to contribute to general knowledge about , start wikipedia pages about (TOFA = 5-tetradecyloxy-2-furoic acid and C75 = trans-4-carboxy-5-octyl-3-methylene-butyrolactone), I also put a copy on my website http://www.nodextrose.org/

Inhibition of cytomegalovirus replication by inhibitors of (glucose to fatty acid conversion enzymes)

HCMV = human cytomegalovirus

ACC = acetyl-CoA carboxylase (catalyzes the conversion of acetyl-CoA into malonyl-CoA, requires biotin (<a href="http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Acetyl-CoA_carboxylase" target="new">http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Acetyl-CoA_carboxylase</a>))

TOFA = 5-tetradecyloxy-2-furoic acid
C75 = trans-4-carboxy-5-octyl-3-methylene-butyrolactone
FAS = fatty acid synthase(<a href="http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Fatty_acid_synthase" target="new">http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Fatty_acid_synthase</a>)

Treatment (10 mg ml-1 or 10g l-1) with 5-tetradecyloxy-2-furoic acid (TOFA), an ACC inhibitor, resulted in a more than 1000-fold reduction in HCMV replication. C75 (trans-4-carboxy-5-octyl-3-methylene-butyrolactone), an inhibitor of FAS, resulted in a more than 100-fold effect at the same dose enzymes that build fatty acids, acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACC) and fatty acid synthase (FAS).

Many viruses, including influenza, HIV and hepatitis, use those same fatty acids to build instead their viral envelopes, outer coatings that help them penetrate human cells.

To investigate whether this requirement extended to other enveloped viruses, the team measured influenza A replication in the presence of the same TOFA and FAS inhibitors, and found similar reductions in replication. Influenza A has little in common with HCMV except for its lipid envelope.

Extensive clinical testing would be needed to draw conclusions about the safety of TOFA and C75, or similar compounds, as antiviral treatment. That said, the team took an early look at toxicity, exposing uninfected fibroblasts to C75 or TOFA for 96 hours. They found that the drugs blocked HCMV replication without causing cell toxicity or self-destruction (apoptosis).(<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3126312/" target="new">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3126312/</a> , <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001594/" target="new">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001594/</a> and <a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-09/uorm-ead092608.php" target="new">http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-09/uorm-ead092608.php</a>)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accabin (talk • contribs) 21:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

EurekaAlert is Copyright ©2014 by AAAS, and only information that is created by or for the US government on PubMed is in the public domain. Abstracts of papers published on PubMed are presumed to be copyrighted by the Journals in which they published unless otherwise stated. This includes PMC which says "Articles and other material in PMC usually include an explicit copyright statement. In the absence of a copyright statement, users should assume that standard copyright protection applies, unless the article contains an explicit statement to the contrary. In case of doubt, contact the journal publisher to verify the copyright status of an article." [3]. I will continue to monitor your contributions and delete any text the infringes copyright. Graham Colm (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wells Cathedral's FAC

I'd determined to stay away from that, but I just couldn't bite my tongue any longer. Eric Corbett 23:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Not the best prose I have seen at FAC. Thanks for the review. Graham Colm (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Request

Hi Graham,

I'm not sure if this is feasible, since I don't really know all the politics/mechanics involved in FAC's; however, I was wondering if it would be alright to ask for an extension of the amphetamine FAC for 1-2 weeks due to the lack of available reviewers over the holidays (an issue brought up on WT:MED around that time) and pending feedback from both Axl, who started reviewing recently, and Anypodetos, who has indicated he hasn't had a break to finish his review. If not, I could probably contact them individually for their input. I don't expect Aa77zz (talk · contribs) to finish his review since he hasn't responded to any of my four (now five with this ping) queries after my attempts to address his concerns though. I think the main benefit of an extension would be that, even if the article isn't promoted, the FAC feedback will be in the FAC archive instead of userpages when I renominate it.

Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, is it worth adding a link in the FAC archive to Sceptical Chymist's supplemental (archived) talk page feedback for his review? He added a fairly substantial and useful review to the article talk page. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

God of War III FAC

I'm assuming you didn't see my post at the FAC since you didn't respond, so I'll post here.

Why did you close the nomination when there were still comments being made? Two reviewers had just left me more comments yesterday. I could understand if comments were not being made for a few days, but that was not the case as comments were still being made as of yesterday morning. You should be more considerate of the nominator and the reviewers because it is very annoying to have a review closed when comments are still being made, let alone it's the second time it was closed (first time for lack of feedback). But then I really start getting feedback and what happens? You close it. I'm not saying I'd be able to satisfy the last two reviewers and that they would support, but I would have liked to have had more comments if they had more and to see if their previous points were satisfied. With your closure, it feels like it's been a waste of time, and now I have to wait another two weeks to renominate. We editors do have lives outside of editing Wikipedia.

As to those comments you had pointed out about support, if those reviewers see no issues and feel the article meets the criteria and they support because of that, why does it make it hard to decide if the article should pass or not? If they see no issues with the article, how are they going to have critical comments? --JDC808 ♫ 14:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the nomination had run for six weeks, which is usually more than enough time for a consensus to emerge. It was unlikely that the opposing reviewers' comments could be fully addressed in a reasonable time, if at all. The article would have benefited from a Peer Review before nomination. Superficial reviews make it difficult to decide whether a consensus has been reached because they give no indication of a critical reading of the article or knowledge of the FA criteria. FAC is not a vote. BTW, I too am busy am in real life. Graham Colm (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

6 weeks might be the "usual" case, but the first reviewer didn't comment until 2 weeks after it was nominated, and the second reviewer was nearly a month after the nomination opened. Going by your 6 week standard, it should be open for a couple more weeks. I've seen other FACs opened longer than this one with comments still being made, so why does this one get closed while there were ongoing comments? And what is a "reasonable time" to address comments? Because I responded/fixed whatever they said within a day or two of their comments. FYI, the article has had a Peer Review and the Peer Review process takes too long anyway (worse than FAC).

In regards to "superficial" comments, again I ask, if they believe it meets all the criteria, how are they going to have critical comments? Hypothetically speaking, if an article comes through FAC meeting all the criteria and the only thing reviewers can do is leave "superficial" comments, then by what you said, it wouldn't pass despite meeting all the criteria. You're essentially assuming poorly of these reviewers.

And since you're also a busy person, you should understand the burdence this is. --JDC808 ♫ 17:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you hope to achieve by arguing with me. If you think I have acted improperly in my role, you can open a discussion here. I would be interested in the views of other editors on this. Graham Colm (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't answer any of my questions, but I may look into it. --JDC808 ♫ 18:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth JDC808, I wasn't even close to withdrawing my opposition. Eric Corbett 19:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

There was no need for that and this wasn't so much of an issue of whether you were going to withdraw your oppose or not. It was a matter of a premature closure. You had just left some more points yesterday morning and so did a new reviewer, then that afternoon after I had responded to all the points, Graham closes the nomination before you or the new reviewer could respond or leave more comments. --JDC808 ♫ 19:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No need for what sweetheart? Opening your eyes to the reality? Eric Corbett 20:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to aggravate me more? --JDC808 ♫ 20:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No. That would in any case appear to be all too easy. Eric Corbett 21:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Now you just sound condescending. --JDC808 ♫ 22:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to teach you something, but I see that I'm wasting my time. Eric Corbett 22:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

JDC, obviously no-one enjoys having their FAC archived, especially when reviewers are active, but I agree with Graham here. The FAC list is very long at the moment, and we try to keep noms open for an extended period only if they appear likely to achieve consensus to promote, so that reviewer resources aren't spread too thin. There's nothing to stop you and the active reviewers continuing discussions on the article talk page, or you resolving their outstanding comments and requesting they check out the article in an ad hoc peer review, before re-submitting for FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I've tried further discussion on the articles talk pages on previous FACs that were archived, but it never worked because the reviewers never responded. --JDC808 ♫ 00:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've had one of my own FACs archived, but I didn't go crying to Mummy, I tried to fix it. Which is what JDC needs to do, whether he likes it or not. Eric Corbett 23:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, what is with your condescending attitude? There was absolutely no need for "crying to Mummy" or any other childish comments you've directed towards me. I'm not sure how you're taken seriously here if that's how you respond to others. You did teach me something about yourself though. --JDC808 ♫ 00:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I rest my case. Eric Corbett 00:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Texarkana Moonlight Murders

Thank you for helping me with the FA nomination. I don't know how to do this FA stuff. Hopefully everything is fixed and where it needs to be now. JeremeK (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

AYE

I appreciate your recent work at AYE. I guess I need to watch-out for fused participles, and I think I can see from your edits what I was doing wrong, so thanks! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Off the FAC record – it's an engaging article, which I enjoyed reading. Graham Colm (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Request

Hi Graham,

Can I have permission to reopen the amphetamine FAC a day early? I'll be a bit busy on Wednesday (Wednesday marks 2 weeks from the Jan 22 close).

Best, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, Graham Colm (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Bishop,Flewett,Kapikian.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Please, sir, may I have another, Pt. 2?

I believe that my Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū nomination is about ready to promote. May I nominate another article in the meantime?

My apologies to you too. Since your FAC has been promoted, clearly my response is not not needed. Congaratulations btw. Graham Colm (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Millwall West Ham rivalry

Hi, I nominated Millwall F.C.–West Ham United F.C. rivalry. You archived it just as we were going through the final stage of the source review. We addressed all comments and suggestions. You mentioned 'clumsy phrases'. It's gone through numerous copy edits and we satisfied each reviewer. If you had pointed out what phrases you thought were clumsy, they would've been addressed. It's quite disheartening after months of work on my first FAC, no opposes and the support of Ian Rose. BillyBatty (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, all the reviewers expressed concerns over the standard of the prose but despite an exceptionally long time at FAC, errors remain. Had the article been promoted in its current form there would have been severe repercussions further down the line that would reflect badly on the reviewers and coordinators. Nobody likes to have their FAC archived but your time and effort have not been wasted. You can renominate the article after two weeks from when the bot runs. During this time I suggest you seek a further thorough copy edit. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It was a FAC for a long time because it went a long period with no comments. We were still waiting a week for Brian to finish his source review. Your two copy edits, for example, reverted changes/suggestions made by reviewers. The subjectivity of different reviewers opinions was quite eye opening. If I renominated would you be willing to give it the first look over? Tried to get a peer review before, but there were no takers. Seems like the final hurdle. Brian said he'd finish the source review if I renominate. Cheers! BillyBatty (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Request

Hey, Graham. I was wondering if it would be okay for me to nom Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix at FAC even though Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Are You Experienced/archive1 is still open. I don't foresee a lot of work being needed at either article, so it would be no trouble for me to field them both at once. What do you think? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I'd rather you waited for "Are You Experienced" to be closed. Graham Colm (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the second would include a co-nom. Would that be okay? I've only been granted leave once in 4 years. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gabe, OK go ahead. Graham Colm (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Graham! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Caliciviruses2.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Explaining sizes of viruses

I think the explanation of virus sizes in the Introduction to viruses article should be improved, rather than just reverted. As I noted on the talk page, I don't think saying they're about 1/100 the size of bacteria conveys the considerable range of virus sizes, nor whether one is speaking of volume or linear dimensions. And since all the readers are eukaryotes, often without knowing it, a comparison to eukaryotic cell sizes might also belong in the introduction. The question of how, and in how much detail, to explain virus sizes in this introductory article is nontrivial, but appears not to have taken up at any length on the talk page, so I think there is room for discussion and improvement. A picture might also help, say of a bacterium infected by multiple phages, perhaps included further on in the article, to go with the picture of the lymphocyte infected by multiple HIVs.CharlesHBennett (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a diagram showing the relative size of a virus compared to a eucaryotic cell in the article (File:Cell with Virus.png). And there is one of my electron micrographs of a bacterial surrounded by viruses in Virus. Your edits were not an improvement. In the first one you introduced technical terms beyond the scope of an introductory article and added a mistake by duplicating a word: *"Viruses range from tens to hundreds of nanometres (nm) in size, in contrast to the 1000 nm typical of bacteria. It would would take 30,000 to 750,000 of them, side by side, to stretch to 1 centimetre (0.39 in)."

In your second edit you added an external link to internal Wikpedia content "Viruses are about 10 to 100 times smaller in linear dimensions than bacteria, and about 1000 to 10,000 times smaller than the cells of higher organisms". Most viruses are spherical, or near enough for all intents and purposes, so adding terms such as "linear dimensions" adds little.

The discussion about sizes, is here where one reviewer commented on the original wording by saying "This kind of comparative statistic is very evocative for a reader like myself who doesn't deal in measurements on a daily basis." Also see this heated debate regarding the usage of "times smaller". No article is perfect and there is always room for improvement, but my wording has stood up to the rigorous scrutiny of WP:FAC and the many readers it drew when it appeared on the main page. Graham Colm (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Despite the uniform high quality of this article, I still think the initial description of virus sizes can be improved, and I have tried to do so, by deferring comparison to bacteria to the subsequent Size section. My objection to "100 times smaller" was not addressed in the discussions you cited, where someone objected (contrary to standard English usage) that "100 times smaller" meant something different from "1/100 the size". The potential ambiguity I am concerned with comes instead from whether size refers to volume or linear dimensions such as length or diameter. This ambiguity is avoided by stating sizes in units such as nm.

On a lesser matter, I agree that most viruses are rather compact in shape, but a few are quite elongated (e.g. TMV). The confusion that might cause is already nicely avoided by the example of how many viruses would need to be placed side by side to stretch one centimetre.CharlesHBennett (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Trevj GA nominations

Hi. With reference to your comment at my RfA in December 2013, I'm working on it. I thought you might be interested to know, but please don't read this as a request to commence the reviews yourself. It's not. However, please feel free to pass the word on if you wish! In any case, I'll be waiting patiently. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Nom: Ike Altgens

Please accept my apologies if I'm spamming. This nom has been active for 38 days. The initial concerns with Ike Altgens have long since been addressed, and a great deal of additional work has been done, including a recheck of its sources and the addition of a free image courtesy the subject's nephew. I believe this article is ready for promotion and would greatly appreciate any attention you're willing to give its nom. Thanks in advance. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

FA promotion bot down?

Hey there. Just letting you know that the promotion bot still hasn't processed some of the week's promotions. You promoted two on the 21st and one on the 19th that still haven't been handled. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sven, I know. That bloody bot is a pain in arse. I'll post a note on its talk page. Graham Colm (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR Survey (and an update)

Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No consensus to promote History of KFC?

That FAC only had one very open-ended oppose that didn't specify specific issues, and the sole reply did not reply with specific issues. I don't believe that is a rightful closure given how actively the nom has dealt with issues and considering again that the lone opposer didn't respond when the issues were dealt with. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

{tps} Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of KFC/archive1. The oppose "didn't specify specific issues"? When a spot-check shows seven instances where references did not support the text or the text was too close to the source, and says that a thorough review of the article is needed to see whether there are any other similar instances, then I'd say that's a specific issue! Close paraphrasing and poorly cited material is a definite no-no at FAC. I would have thought that, after three months at FAC, the article would benefit from having such a review carried out away from the spotlight so that it can be brought back to FAC with a clean bill of health. But I expect Graham will be able to put it better than me. Bencherlite^Talk 06:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Just chiming in, I realise it's very deflating when a nom remains open a long time only to be archived but, OTOH, for several sourcing/paraphrasing issues to be found towards the end of that time is not a good sign. The nominator needs to look over the entire article with the results of the spotcheck in mind, and that's a job for outside FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Platelet

In my continued review of the page Platelet, a came upon a paragraph that was copied word for word from the abstract of a peer reviewed journal "Blood". Whoever added this to the platelet page DID reference the article they copied from - but is exact copying allowed even with attribution?

I have moved the paragraph to the bottom of the section titled Blood disorders for the time being. Thanks in advance for your input. IiKkEe (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for you contributions to this article. I have deleted the paragraph in question because it is a violation of copyright. On an unrelated matter, please add citations to your additions which are compliant with WP:MEDRS. This tool is useful for this [4]. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Lots of subjects to cover with you.

Thanks for moving the images, and replacing the blood smear. It looks much better.

I have accidently deleted part of two references when I was copying and pasting whole sections as part of reorganizing the page. The references are currently numbered 6 and 25; a previous version on 15 Mar has the undamaged citations: the numbers there are 17 and 9. Could you repair these citations? Also current citation 6 seems to have had something wrong with it since before I started editing: could you take a look at it too?

As you have gently pointed out to me, additions need to be referenced. I need to confess that I was not aware of this when I started: I looked at the page, noted how little of what was there was referenced, assumed it was OK to add unreferenced material and proceeded.

Some of what I have done involved adding/changing section titles and moving material to fit under the new sections: presumably no problems there. But what I have also done is re-word, replace and delete unreferenced material and leaving it unreferenced. (I have been careful not to delete any material which was referenced.) And worst of all, I have added unreferenced material of my own.

Two other sections I have edited without referencing are Coagulation, and High Molecular Weight Kinase. Please revert all the changes I made in Coagulation.

Regarding Platelet and High Molecular Weight Kinase, as I see it, your decision is whether to tolerate the additional unreferenced material for the sake of the improved organization, or delete all my changes and revert back to before me. I am not in a position to begin referencing my additions. I will of course respect and accept your decision.

I sincerely apologize for the trouble I have caused.

IiKkEe (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Since I wrote to you about 8 hours ago, I see you have not made any changes or replied: that's good: it gives me a chance to say more. Also since then, I've read your response on the talk page to my suggestions about moving the images, and read the section you suggested on "Be bold - go for it". Great timing. So here are more thoughts and questions.

I noticed that in your reply you used the phrases "my picture and "my diagram": that helps me to know you have a vested interest in this page. Have you contributed text to this page? Have you edited it on your own initiative or just when things have been pointed out to you as I did? What is your level of knowledge about platelets?

Reading the "Bold" section has reassured me somewhat that perhaps not everything I changed was a mistake. But things are so intertwined now, the decision as to whether to keep all or none or some of my changes will be difficult, whether for me to "Boldly" continue to be involved, or to leave or to you and others. Any thoughts on how to proceed?

If I do decide to continue, should I be bold, or use the platelet talk page, or use your talk page to discuss issues if I don't feel bold?

I am not an expert in platelets but I do have a working knowledge, I have done some online reading, and my wife has a platelet disorder, which keeps me involved. I would like to tell you about some of my thoughts when I first read the platelet page, and some examples of specific problems I tried to fix, and which will still need fixing if you delete my fixes.

Before I do that I want to send this much to you to go along with what I sent last night, so you see them together. I'll return after a break.

IiKkEe (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you should use the Platelet Talk Page for discussions on the article. I have contributed many images to Wikipedia and I don't have a "vested interest" in the article. My qualifications are not relevant as everything we add to articles - particularly our medical articles - should be supported by reliable sources. Because all edits are instantly "live", it is best to add references as you go a long otherwise they could be deleted by other editors. Graham Colm (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I see you fixed the references - thanks for that too. I certainly agree it is best to add references as one goes along. The situation I found myself in, when I first read the Platelet page in March was - what if anything to do when I read an unreferenced statement that was clearly wrong based on my general knowledge, if I did not want to delve into the literature for the best reference? That would be a daunting and time consuming task I don't want to undertake. I chose to replace an incorrect unreferenced statement with a correct unreferenced statement - neither ideal. And I certainly understand and accept the risk my edit could be deleted by other editors because it's unreferenced.

I'll use the Platelet talk page for further discussion on content.

Thanks again for helping me understand how Wikipedia works.

IiKkEe (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I copied and pasted from the edit page and got a reference number next to megakaryocyte but the reference doesn't look like the rest. Let me know what I did wrong so I won't do it again.

IiKkEe (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I left out two "{" - see my latest edit to the article. A script will complete the citation later. Graham Colm (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC) PS. You might have to flush your PC's cache. (Try the F5 key - but this depends on which browser you are using). Graham Colm (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Just now saw the above reply. Thanks.

I don't know what a cache is, or how or why to flush it. Two more requests for help: this is about changing the text under two illustrations which I don't know how to do. The first is your new platelets picture: if you agree, would you change the words "Latin thrombocytes" to "Platelets"? I believe these are not synonyms, and have avoided the word "thrombocytes" throughout the article.

Second, next to the Aggregation section, if you agree, would you change the text under the picture from "Platelet clumps" to "Aggregated platelets"? That will match the term in the narrative.

Thanks.

IiKkEe (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but "platelets" and "thrombocytes" are synonyms. I won't change "platelet clumps" because this is the common term. A cached page is an webpage that is stored on your PC to save time by not reloading it. Often your PC will display the stored page rather than updating it. You can force your PC to update the page by flushing its cache. You do this by pressing the F5 key. Graham Colm (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the cached page explanation. And thanks for changing the text on the smear.

IiKkEe (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to gently persuade you that thrombocyte should not be used as a synonym for platelet. Here is a reference from Michelson's book Platelets, Third Edition, Part I, chapter 1, Summary, Page 3: "Polyploid megakaryocytes and their progeny, nonnucleated platelets, are found only in mammals. In all other animal species, cells involved in hemostasis and blood coagulation are nucleated. The nucleated cells primarily involved in nonmammalian, vertebrate hemostasis are designated (italics)thrombocytes(close italics) to distinguish them from nonnucleated platelets".

IiKkEe (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That's only for non-mammals. They are synonyms according to The U.S. National Library of Medicine [5] and although the term platelet is more often used, thrombocyte is retained for conditions such as thrombocytopenia. By the way, you are still adding references incorrectly. You have to include the full template (not just the pmid number) as shown here: {{cite pmid|number goes here!}} Graham Colm (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope I'm putting this in the right place. Thanks for telling me a second time how to reference: I've now done a couple successfully. I've corrected the external link I added, which works when I type it in the address bar, but I can't figure out how to make it a live link that just needs to be clicked on. I see you have edited the paragraph on function in the intro. I'm OK with what you've done. I'd like to edit your edit: it's not revert, it's a reword.

IiKkEe (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Theranos

Hi, you earlier marked the new article on blood testing company Theranos as reading like an advert. I've finally got round to trying to amend this, using a bunch more references and trimming down some of the previous content: please see [6]. Could you take a look and see if you think the content now passes WP:NPOV? If not, what else do we need to tweak? Thanks. Fences&Windows 21:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is much improved - I have removed he advert template. Graham Colm (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

deletion of poetry performance videos

Dear Graham, let's discuss why you feel video recordings of poetry are of "no encyclopaedic value"? As an encyclopaedia exists to inform about a subject and so a recording of the very subject it self would be encyclopaedic I feel. For example an article about Salman Rushdie, would be fine to have a photo to depict him on wikipedia as long as the photo bears the correct licence. Hence a recording of a poem with an encyclopaedia article is in itself is encyclopaedic. Now in the realms of poetry, especially poems that are centuries old, perhaps certain recordings may not meet the personal tastes and interpretations of all individuals, however poetry and it's readings are open for interpretation. For instance we would not allow the deletion of an article of about a poem itslef simply based on the fact that some may perceive the poem to be of poor quality, or not too their personal taste, that would be their opinion which they are in titled to, but not grounds on judging encyclopaedic merit. And so would you not agree that basing edits/deletes on personal tastes, preconceived stylistic notions, and opinions about the quality of a poetic recording would in fact compromise the very encyclopaedic integrity of such an edit or delete itself? Also your initial reasoning for the delete of the video was stated as "license questionable - no indication that it is free content on You Tube", why did you not initially feel that the video was of "no encyclopaedic value" and only later changed your reasoning when notified of that fact the video did bear the correct licence? thanks for your time. Sharoetry (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't discuss edits with sockpuppets. Graham Colm (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if my account relationships were not clear earlier, this should be now rectified and apparent. Sharoetry (talk · contribs) is the account name used to conduct edits and discussions in poetry and literature articles from hence forth. My master user profile Unicornwhite (talk · contribs) was created with the intention to add video creative commons content to wiki and not get involved in discussions or edits on poetry articles. And so Sharoetry (talk · contribs) will be conducting all discussions and edits concerning literature and poetry from now on to avoid confusions and keep consistency. regards, Sharoetry (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the Sockpuppet account per Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts. Hopefully that helps further conversation. The original user account is @Unicornwhite:, Sadads (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

• Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology 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 can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology 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!
• Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
• Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
• To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–invite}} ~~~~
• To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • {{subst:WP Physiology–welcome}} ~~~~
• You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! Diptanshu^Talk 12:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional article

I'd like to nominate Babe Ruth at FAC. There is a little over two months to get that promoted, if possible, and Oliver Bosbyshell is sitting in the way, but has three supports. Ian reviewed Bosbyshell so is probably conflicted out of this decision.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead, I'm sure it's well prepared. I'll take a look the Oliver Bosbyshell nom later. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Been working on it for a year on and off so I think it's OK. Man proposes, FAC disposes, though. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

negotiate adjective for Platelet size and shape

Hi - saw you deleted "remarkably". Understand it's an editorial opinion type word. Probably not the best choice. But without some adjective, I fear it leaves the reader wondering "so what" that they're uniform. How about "unusually"? I can even find a reference for that.

Regards -

IiKkEe (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer "usually fairly uniform". "Unusually" begs the question "unusual to what?" With regard to blood cells, I can't think what's unusual about the cellular components of blood being around the same size, with the exception of the large and small lymphocytes. But having said that, the large lymphocytes are usually around the same size, as are the small ones. All blood cells show degrees of pleomorphism, and this includes platelets. If you look at the top image, you will see that the platelets are not that uniform, nor are the erythrocytes. If platelets are considered to be "merely" fragments of megakaryocytes, then their uniformity could be considered as unusual or even remarkable. But this is an outdated view. They are fully differentiated, anuclear cells just as mature erythrocytes are. This is the current consensus. Graham Colm (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

PS, what are the other two "cellular elements of the blood, whose function (along with the coagulation factors) is to stop bleeding"? Graham Colm (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

FAC closing

I raised this point at the FAC page, but no-one seems to care very much! (Maybe it's me, and I need to get out more!) We currently have no bots at all closing the FACs and doing all the housekeeping. The Legobot request seems stagnant (I've no idea how long these usually take) and therefore the bot is yet doing that job (and I don't know if the trial edits have been completed). To me, this is rather irritating and leaves us looking unprofessional as we have a lot of "open" FACs which have ended and several FAs with no "star". I did a manual run last month, but I'm reluctant to unilaterally do this again when no-one seems to be all that bothered but me (and the sadly absent Maralia). So, in short, what do you and Ian Rose want to do until this is all resolved? I don't mind doing a few more manual closes of the FACs myself if that would be helpful but don't want to interfere if you'd rather I didn't. And after this, I'll get back in my box and stop worrying about it! (I've also left this rather rambling post on Ian's talk page, and either of you may tell me to go away...) Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC) I am also bothered by this. Legoktm is pretty good about responding to issues though. I didn't realize that it was one of his bots that did this, or I would have found him sooner. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Cordoba Water Wheel.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Urgent FAC

I remember during the second FAC of the now promoted Pather Panchali, you listed it as "urgent" when there were lack of reviewers. Can you please do the same for the current FAC of Gemini (2002 Tamil film)? Bcos it failed its previous FAC due to lack of activity/reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

American spelling

Top marks for knowing the American spelling of "artifacts", and many thanks for a few other US-related fixes. I intend to get an American to check the article out before it goes anywhere. Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive4

What do you mean, no consensus? I count 4 clear (bolded) supports and only one object. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, FAC is not a vote. Three of the "4 clear (bolded) supports" were superficial reviews and were not helpful in deciding if the FA criteria have been met. I agree that the prose is below par and would have also objected had I not been the closing coordinator. Clearly the article needs further work on the prose, which is best done away from the pressures of FAC. Graham Colm (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

featured content
Thank you for reviewing and promoting articles to featured articles. I hope to live long enough to see the precious one (with a history) on the Main page ;) - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 159th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize,. - As we know by know by now it took only a week for it to happen, also Kafka became the (so far) most successful TFA, miracles seem possible, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

FAC bot

Is it okay if I take over bot duties for a month or so? See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Not closed. —Designate (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course; it's tedious work but we would be grateful. We have had problems with bots for some time. Graham Colm (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Rolf Harris Protection

Hi there,

I noticed that you have applied both full protection and pending changes level 2 protection to the article. While I understand your protection of the article may help stem some of the undesirable comments that arise in high profile situations, I would appreciate if you would consider removing the pending changes protection. First, as of the most recent RfC on pending changes, there isn't a consensus to use it. Second, pending changes level 2 is redundant to full protection. Thank you for your consideration. Mike V • Talk 05:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I have removed the PC protection. Thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Would you consider downgrading the protection on the talk page from full to semi? It will hopefully keep bad edits away, but I'm sure there are a number of people who do a lot of work on BLPs who would like to discuss things in the meantime and work out what should be done. It seems quite rare for an article talk page to be fully protected. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and I did this earlier today. Graham Colm (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you think that full protection of the article is necessary. There are many non-admin editors with experience of BLPs and policy who are able to edit the article competently. I know I can raise this at WP:RFRPL, but I'm asking you to reconsider first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ermm... I see you gave me about half an hour to reconsider. Graham Colm (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I saw that you hadn't edited at all for almost three days; took that as meaning that it was likely that you wouldn't be available immediately; and went through the proper process at WP:RFRPL instead. No big deal either way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely no big deal, but please don't mistake my lack of edits for absence. I check my watchlist at least three times every day and get my notifications on my phone. Some days I might only read stuff. Best wishes. Graham Colm (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Khrushchev's Grave 1973.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Khrushchev's Grave 1973.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Tsar Nicholas II Family Remains.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tsar Nicholas II Family Remains.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Permission to add a new FAC

As this seems ready to be promoted, can I nominate another article?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course. I will promote Indefatigable later today. Graham Colm (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible promotion

Could you perhaps take a look at this and see if Katy Perry is ready to become FA? I'm hoping to have her be "Today's Featured Article" for her 30th birthday this upcoming October 25th. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:JSTOR access

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of Ross Parker/archive1

Graham, I am not familiar with featured article discussions so I am learning as I go. Thanks for your guidance. If I had known your role, I would have contacted you to intervene when @Shakehandsman: tried to discredit my comments. Nigel Pap (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Beaune Altarpiece

Graham, I would to nom this if possible, cough, 3 days after the FAC for Portrait of a Young Girl (Christus) was closed. Ceoil (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil, go ahead. You didn't have to ask - your last one was promoted. (I bet you two quid that you will asked to move the lead image to the right within 24 hours :-) Graham Colm (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Cheers Graham. I'll take your two quid and raise you ten shillings. Just they try! Then again things that make sence IRL...dont necessarly translate to a rule and convention atmosphere like here. I think in terms of newspaper and magazine layout, where the novel wins, but, sigh. Wait until I get to Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat). Then the pain will begin ;) Ceoil (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Katy Perry FA

Just wanted to give a big thanks to you, Graham, for promoting her to FA :'D. This was also my first FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing on Murder of Ross Parker

It would be helpful if you joined the discussion on the talk page. I was unable to find the source of the claims in the references used in the version you keep restoring. Perhaps you can quote the relevant parts? Nigel Pap (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

On a related subject, you didn't comment on the last message I left for you. As "FAC Coordinator" were you aware of Shakehandsman's attack on me before it was deleted? They were on the discussion page for over 24 hours. Nigel Pap (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have commented on the article's discussion page. I am fully aware, and have been all along of the comment to which you refer. I am not obliged to respond, and did not feel it necessary to do so, but I would have removed the statement from the FAC discussion if I hadn't been beaten to it by another admin. It is unwise of you to appeal to me to take your side on this. Your protracted arguing at the FAC was not helpful and could be seen as disruptive. Graham Colm (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not asking you to take sides. I am hoping that we can all discuss things neutrally. I am confused as to how you could have been aware of the comment but did not remove it. Please see my comments on the talk page. I am still waiting for someone (not necessarily you) to supply references for the claims in the lede. This is exactly what would be expected for any other Wikipedia article on any other topic. Nigel Pap (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Why do you keep removing the "disputed" template from Murder of Ross Parker? I dispute the factual accuracy of the claims in the lede. I have explained my reasoning on the talk page. So far we have found a source for one part of the disputed material (number of assailants) but the rest is unsourced. Nigel Pap (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Remove that inappropriate tag and I will discuss with you tomorrow. I am concerned that of the many things that are problematic with this article, you are concentrating on a single clause and you have not offered anything more constructive than deletion. Perhaps we can find a stronger source for the remaining part but I suspect you have not been looking for one. I am not convinced at this stage that you are being objective. Also, my talk page is not the venue for this discussion; please confine you comments to the article's talk page. And please don't call into question my admin rights; as far as this discussion is concerned, I am just another editor who remains to be convinced by your argument. Graham Colm (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

My argument is simply stating the fact that some claims are unsourced. I will be happy to remove the template when sources are found. Nigel Pap (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

One claim is contested not the facts (plural). If you remove the tag, I will hide the clause that you consider unverifiable and we can seek a resolution to our dilemma later. Graham Colm (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to replace the current disputed phrase with the one sourced from the Times and remove the template. Nigel Pap (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, so can we live with this for the time being until more solid sources emerge? [7] Graham Colm (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That is all I have asked for. This is where we were before you decided to revert my changes. I am glad we have been able to agree on something. Nigel Pap (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Fifth Element FAC

Hi. You recently archived my FAC nomination for The Fifth Element. This was my first article nominated for FAC. I am assuming good faith; can you please explain why it wasn't promoted?

• Mirokado supported the nomination.
• Eric Corbett supported the content but opposed overall due to problems with the prose. Tezero agreed with me that since Eric Corbett did not specify what was wrong with the prose, his opposition was not valid, as "complaints have to be actionable to be taken into account".
• Dank supported the nomination on prose, after Eric Corbett's opposition.
• I addressed every single concern that was brought up on the nomination page.

Aside from successfully addressing every actionable complaint, I don't understand what more I could have done. Please explain, as whatever I have done wrong, I would like to avoid doing it again with my next FAC nomination. Freikorp (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. The nomination was archived because after nearly two months at FAC, there was no clear consensus among reviewers that all the Featured Article criteria have been achieved. Although the process is not based on voting, the coordinators need to see at least three, often four or more, unconditional declarations of support for promotion. We do not need lengthy comments from established reviewers, nor do they need to list every issue. FAC is not Peer Review. I don't like archiving nominations because I know how much time and effort editors put in. FA status is one of our highest accolades and although no article is perfect, we have to be confident that contributions that could appear one the Main Page are examples of our best work. At the moment, this is not the case. You can renominate after 14 days. In the meantime I suggest that you read through some other nomination discussions to gain insight into just how high FA standards are. Best wishes. Graham Colm (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Graham, just logged in... On the subject, were you still planning to close the recently promoted FACs? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I got distracted – I'll catch up now. Graham Colm (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

FAC archive question

Hi, you archived my featured article review for Thirteen (Megadeth album). This was my first FA attempt, and I have no idea if that means it passed, failed, or what.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I am guessing that it means it has not reached FA. Why did you archive it? I was hoping for further comment on the article, so I'd like to contest your closure of it.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the article is not ready for promotion. Please see my comments above and the FAC instructions with regard to timing and archiving. You can renominate the article after 14 days from the time of archiving. Graham Colm (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I was improving the article as people were commenting on it and you arbitrarily closed it. I want you to un-archive it. Failing that, I want leave to immediately renominate the article so as to continue to seek actionable critical advice to make the article an FA.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You can renominate in 14 days from closing. If you renominate earlier it will removed from the FAC list. Graham Colm (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You will not grant me leave to renominate, but you have made no explanation as to how you feel the article could be improved. I feel that one or the other is warranted. Seeing as you offered your view that it is not ready, I feel that the least you could do is offer some advice.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If I may jump in with a suggestion. Why not open a peer review during those two weeks, where reviewers can state what the article needs to be promoted? When the FAC is allowed to proceed, they can support the promotion based on their resolved comments at the PR. That is basically the way Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band became an FA.--Retrohead (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This is good advice. Graham Colm (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It is also not either of what I requested from you regarding this matter. As for Retrohead's suggestion, he and I communicate often and I will be discussing his suggestion with him. However, I have found my experience with you extremely disappointing and completely unconstructive, and I wish to make that very clear. If possible, I would prefer you to recuse yourself from anything, FA related or not, regarding myself in the future, but I doubt you would consider that any more seriously than my other comments. Unless I am given good reason to continue this conversation, I'm done here.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You should pursue this complaint against me at the FAC discussion page not here. Personally, I think you are over reacting and do not realise that if Ian and I were to comment on your nomination we would not be in a position to promote it when it is ready. Graham Colm (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in starting a case and all that crap. I'm going to just drop it and move on. If you feel that I have overreacted, well, you are as entitled to your opinion as I am mine. Additionally, I am not asking you, or Ian, to promote the article, so please don't imply that I am. I was asking to either have the review re-opened, or since you said the article was not ready, specific criticisms from you as to how the article could be improved. You didn't do either though, and obviously, I am in no position to make you. In any case, I consider this matter closed.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing the improved article back at FAC in due course. Graham Colm (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

As I'm sure you remember, you came to my User Talk page, accused me of a "sarcastic tirade", and threatened to block me. (This was in reference to Talk:The_Final_Cut_(album)#Recording:_Gilmour_receives_co-producer.27s_royalties_on_The_Final_Cut, and I'm happy with the way you handled that, by the way. The article is better for it. The essence of what I wanted in the article is there now. Thank you.)

Meanwhile, on my User Talk page, I took the time to explain to you very clearly that my comments were not meant even slightly sarcastic, and while you never responded, I get the feeling you read my response and were okay with it.

Now, since you don't approve of personal attacks, and are willing to block users for engaging in them, I would like you to explain to me why Parrot of Doom is still free to run around saying things such as the following (in the same Article Talk topic):

[Quoting me]: "The "Featured Article" thing: I get it; it's a point of pride." - you don't appear to get anything. You'll excuse me for paying the rest of your post absolutely no attention whatsoever, since it's all similarly full of bullshit.

If you actually read the whole comment he's quoting from, you'll see it's me attempting to soothe the guy, because he has seemed to hate me from the moment he realized I know roughly as much about Pink Floyd as he does. I mean, I have a pretty long history here, and probably 90% of my edits have remained untouched for years now.

This guy has shown he will say anything to justify reverting any edit I make to one of "his" articles. Which directly contravenes Wikipedia policy.

This man has a long history of verbally abusing me and others, as I have attempted to show you and other admins. He has been treating me this way from the first moment I touched an article he had been squatting on. When I've gone to admins looking for help, so far I've gotten none whatsoever. I'm hoping you can be a little more equitable in your application of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Thank you.

--Ben Culture (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you will have to appeal elsewhere. As I was involved in the discussions on the changes to the article, I recuse myself from my admin privileges in this case. Also, I have a great deal of respect for Parrot of Doom as a content editor and I empathise with his attempts to maintain the quality of Featured Articles and his frustration with editors who do not take the time to read our policies. And, the tone of the discourse on your user page convinces me that you are an editor with whom I do not wish to engage. Graham Colm (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"[I]nvolved in the discussions"? GrahamColm, you settled the dispute entirely! I sent you a thanks for your edit! That's why I came to you.

I'm saddened to see you got a bad impression of me. I don't hide my past (one bad day one year, one bad week the next year). I could. Clearly, it is possible to make your User Talk page only searchable, not easily browseable. That's what your friend Parrot of Doom has done. But when I decided to make the jump from an ever-changing IP Address to an actual User Name, I thought, Yikes -- aside from the real names, this is kind of an open book, isn't it? And I think it still is. Or should be. I don't know.

Am I to understand, you "will not hesitate to block" me if I say something like "You'll excuse me for paying the rest of your post absolutely no attention whatsoever, since it's all similarly full of bullshit", but you'll be giving Parrot of Doom a free pass to verbally abuse me AND OTHERS in this manner, as he sees fit? Which he is doing consistently? Because IMO, when WP:CIVIL no longer applies equally to ALL members, we might as well devote our efforts to arguing on YouTube! ←Ben Culture (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hasil Adkins/archive1

Hi, I see you closed this as not promoted. I take it too much time had passed without consensus for promotion being reached? I foolishly hadn't checked the page in a while and didn't notice more comments for improvement had been made. I can easily address those... but what should I do moving forward? Is it bad form to nominate the article again? After all, no one opposed promotion. Also, how do I get more people to participate in the discussion? Is it commonplace to go around personally asking for people's input and/or !vote? Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Per above, answering as Graham's colleague at FAC. It is perfectly okay to renominate the article but the general rule (per instructions at WP:FAC) to wait at least two weeks to do that after the coordinator archived the previous nomination. I notice you didn't get any feedback at PR, which is a shame. It may be worth trying that again and letting the relevant Wikiprojects know that it's open. Then if you get feedback it's fine to let those people (and the GA reviewer, and the archived FAC's reviewers) know that it's up for FAC again when you get round to that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Problem

Not to re-open old wounds, but when you closed my FA review last week, apparently it still shows that it is active, and I am having trouble getting a peer review going on it - it was already closed by a bot once today. If you insist on closing it, I would appreciate if you would correct the issue so I can complete the PR process. Thanks. Here's the article: Thirteen (Megadeth album)--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Answering as Graham's FAC coordinator colleague, I think you'll find that one of the community has manually closed it now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you--L1A1 FAL (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, I was wondering if you could take a look at Sleeping Dogs (video game) and tell me if you think it meets the FA criteria in your opinion. It would be very much appreciated! URDNEXT (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

GrahamColm URDNEXT (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the time. Graham Colm (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What happened here?

After weeks of nothing, I saw that this FA was not promoted. Can you tell me why? Everything in the list of items was addressed, and no one had any remaining concerns. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Based on the reviews, it was not possible to decide if a consensus had been reached that the article satisifies the the FA criteria. The FAC coordinators need to see at least three, preferably four or more, explicit statements of support backed-up by their reviews. Graham Colm (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that the nom was months old, the lack of support votes was likely simply because it was far off anyone's screen. There seems to have been no attempt to address this through the "needs attention" or other mechanisms, let alone even a ping on my talk page. I would have checked more frequency, but I was under the impression the whole process was stalled, which is why I asked on the talk page, but no one answered there either. I'm sure I could have garnered supports in a few moments, but I wasn't asked. Now what do I do? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You can renominate the article. Please do not solicit "supports", but it is acceptable to invite reviews using neutrallly worded requests. BTW, nominators are expected to watch their FACS. We do not have the resources to notify you with regard to any comments (or closures). Graham Colm (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Graham, as far as I was aware, due to language on the FA talk page, the FA system was stalled. I asked about this and got no response. So after weeks of no updates, suddenly, without warning, there's an update. Are you really blaming me for not noticing this? And given the delays, do you really think it is too much to ask for a note on my talk page that something was about to happen after all that time? Surely given the months I spent on this, a post on my talk page is not going to break the bank. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz, the two active FAC coordinators cannot be expected to notify nominators that nominations are approaching the time when they will be closed, either as successful or not. That has never been regarded as part of their role. If reviewers aren't reviewing, then articles can't remain open indefinitely. Better to try again in a couple of weeks or so, with a clean start (but a link to the old review). There won't be any criticism if you notify the previous reviewers of the second review. The "stalled" FA system relates to the bot that tidies up closed nominations, not to the work of reviewers or the FAC coordinators. I suggest you try the efficient MILHIST A-class review (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review) which will get some knowledgeable reviewers onto the article who, if satisfied with the article, are likely to come through to FAC with you. Good luck. Bencherlite^Talk 21:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/James_Chadwick/archive1#Image_check

It failed the image check. it still fails the image check - it claims copyright based on anonymity for one file while listing the photographer, and File:Sir Ernest Rutherfords laboratory, early 20th century. (9660575343).jpg needs better documentation, as it's unclear who to credit for the CC-licensing - and that's if we're presuming the Science Museum is the author of the image, which seems foolish.

If you aren't sure if something's been resolved, please ask, but while the text has unresolved comments on one of the key criteria, it's kind of nonsensical to promote. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I have replied on the FAC page. Graham Colm (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not a very good response to an article with a quite-possibly-copyvio lead image. I try to be polite and nice while doing image reviews, but I am very good at copyright after working at FPC for seven years, and if I say something's an issue, I can pretty much guarantee it is one. When the problem is in the lead image of an article, that has a very, very high risk of copyvio on the main page, copyvio in the Signpost, and copyvio spreading everywhere, because the lead image is the one people tend to grab to use.

Image reviews tend to take me a couple hours, to do right. That work is wasted if they're going to be ignored. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought

I was wondering, about how would you react if someone nominated List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States to FA? Also, how long would it take for it to pass? URDNEXT (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Lists go to FLC instead, but that one wouldn't pass at all unless some significant work were done before nomination. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Funningly enough, that "significant work" would probaly take 2 years. URDNEXT (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

FAC - Murder of Leigh Leigh

Hi Graham. I previously contacted you regarding why my first FAC nomination was not promoted. Your explanation that there was not a consensus regarding promotion of that article was helpful; thanks. My second FAC nomination, FAC/Murder of Leigh Leigh, is fast working it's way toward the bottom of the current list. Besides an image review, nobody reviewed the article for the first month it was at FAC. It has since received 2 reviews, both supporting the nomination. However my first FAC nomination did not get any comments after it reached as far down the queue as my current nomination is, and I am concerned my current nomination will also not get any further reviews. I have one question for you. Considering that even though there are only two reviewers, 100% of them support the promotion - if the nomination does not receive any further reviews, is it likely to be promoted? I ask as if the answer is 'no' or 'probably not', I intend to start shamelessly grovelling to other editors in order to get more reviews, but i'd rather not resort to this if I don't have to. Thanks again for your time. Freikorp (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame that this FAC is not getting more attention. If I were you, I would "start shamelessly grovelling ", but be careful not to solicit support and stress that single line comments are of little value in judging consensus. Graham Colm (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Chandralekha FAC

I thank you for your comments on the FAC page of Chandralekha, and for helping it gain response. Meanwhile, your comments there seem to have been addressed, so do please remember to give "support" if the article is good. But I still expected more non-Indian reviewers, as they could help making the prose look more international in tone. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I am still unhappy about the length of the quotations. And please be carefull not to appear to solicit "support" see WP:CANVAS. Graham Colm (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

Nice to see your new user name. Can I suggest you put a link to your old one on your user page? I'm sure you would have thought of this yourself of course. --John (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi John, I have only just noticed that the change has been made. I'll do as you suggest. Graham Beards (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Graham, could you also update Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Featured_articles? Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki, I forgot that one – and there might be others :) Graham. Graham Beards (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Peter Sellers

Hello Graham, sorry about my revert yesterday, it was in anticipation of a revert by one the current POV gang who I wrongly thought you were a part of (I didn't recognise your shiny new name). Thanks for the protection. Cassianto^talk 18:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been thinking about using my real name for some time. I wish I had used it from the start. No worries about the revert - I found some ironic agreement with the "yawn" in your edit summary. With regard to the article, I think it's gone beyond a content dispute and is now an example of trolling. I will extend the protection if needed. Best. Graham. Graham Beards (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Which begs the question "why Colm"? Haha, yeah, you're far from boring, and the "yawn" was in no way meant for you. This caused me much embarrassment when I realised, I can tell you! I have tried to steer clear of Sellers as much as I can and even took it off of my FA chart on my user page as the constant trolling made want to disown the article. I'm supposed to be on a break, but I can hardly leave SchroCat to fend for himself. Cassianto^talk 19:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's my middle name, well at least part of it. Please don't leave the cat all alone. Graham Beards (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Nope, I won't, cheers Graham Cassianto^talk 20:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Graham, perhaps the lock could be extended to the talk page too? It might stop a lot of the troublemakers. Sellers is a magnet for nonsense.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The trolling continues on the Sellers talk Graham. I think Caden and HiLo need to be warned about their behaviour and continuing with an archived discussion. Cassianto^talk 20:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

For the time being, WP:SHUN is probably the best course to take. Graham Beards (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising

Hi. I'm curious about you comment regarding the FAC Temperatures Rising. Are you satisfied with the answer you received? The article now has four people offering their support so I'm presuming that it has an excellent chance of becoming a Featured Article. Is it in your hands to reach a consensus? Perhaps I'm a little impatient and overanxious but I really do want to see it reach FA. Jimknut (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I don't know what you drink, but this is my appreciation I show you for your comments that helped improve Chandralekha. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Outed!

Welcome Mr Beards! (Which is the real name, incidentally?) Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Dr Graham Malcolm Beards, actually :-) Graham. Graham Beards (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Gough Whitlam at TFAR

Hi Graham, you (and your talk page stalkers) may be interested in a thread I've started about Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Gough_Whitlam, where possibilities for marking the death (aged 98) of this former prime minister of Australia include re-running a TFA. I'm interested in getting lots of views so I'll be leaving this note on various pages (and apologies, TPS-ers, if your talk page is not one of them!) Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 08:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Graham Beards:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

FGM

Many thanks, Graham! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You are v. welcome SV. I have listed your article under Society and Culture - is this OK? Graham Beards (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Thank you again. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Beach Thomas

Thanks for reviewing the comments on the Beach Thomas FAC and for promoting thereafter. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

/* User:Diener to Edits: ok - or not? */ Viroids: new version

Dr Beards, For unknown reasons, I have not been able to enter anything in my talk page for several days now. Above all, I wanted to thank you for your kind offer to help me reinsert the missing computer codes in the references, which I so ignorantly deleted. I tried to follow your instruction and ask for help with it on the viroid's Talk page. Trouble is, I couldn't write on that page either and was, therefore, stuck. I then found your talk page and described my problem, but I didn't hear from you, so, apparently you somehow didn't receive my comments there either.

Aside from the reinsertion of the computer codes, I have a problem with reference No. 1, Wolfram's book. I have read portions of it, after which I have no idea what possible connection its content could have with viroids, because it concerns exclusively matters of Particle Physics. While I am not a physicist, further investigation revealed that both the book and Wolfram himself (a self-pronounced genius) are most controversial. One atomic physicist summarized the book as follows: "What is new [in it] is not true and what is true, is not new."

In view of Wikipedia's expressed policy of tolerating demonstrably incorrect statements (such as the ones in Zimmer's New York Times piece), I wonder what can be done to delete the reference to Wolfram's book, which is obviously uncalled for. I don't know who or when this ref. was inserted, evidently without discussion, but whoever did so should be required to justify its inclusion. With kind regards and hope that we can now finalize the viroid page to everybody's satisfaction.96.26.126.134 (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Dr Diener,

I have replaced the reference in question with this one:

• Lewin, Benjamin.; Krebs, Jocelyn E.; Kilpatrick, Stephen T.; Goldstein, Elliott S.; Lewin, Benjamin. Genes IX. (2011). Lewin's genes. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett. p. 23. ISBN 9780763766320.

As you probably know, this is a highly regarded textbook.

I cannot find a reliable source for the number of atoms, so I have deleted this statement.

I don't understand why you are having difficulties posting your comments. In any case, please remember to login with your username and password otherwise you posts will be anonymous and you will reveal you IP address to others. Graham Beards (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Oak and the Calf.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Oak and the Calf.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Why was this article archived?

Hi Graham, could you tell me why the Spokane article was archived with 3 supports and 0 remaining opposes? I thought that 3 was the magic number that achieved consensus. Im confused.G755648 (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it was an exceptionally long FAC. Clearly the article was far from ready for promotion when it was nominated. Despite being listed for over two months, there was no clear consensus for promotion. In a nutshell, there was one provisional support, one on prose only, one on comprehensiveness and prose and one suggestion to withdraw based mainly on sources. (My quick audit of the sources revealed dead links. For example, references 1 has been dead since 2013, 85 and 122 have been dead since November 25, yet the access dates are given as December 7!) I was not satisfied that all the FA criteria had been addressed. You can renominate the article after two weeks from the archiving date, but please make sure that all the issues from the previous FAC have been fully addressed. Graham Beards (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2014 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gavin. Graham Beards (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

FAC

There's a bot that recognizes the Support text for promoting FACs? I did not know that. Thanks. Is it possible you can figure out why my collapse didn't work? I don't mind it being up, but since I went neutral the discussion is just distracting and the poll for the tree has a rough consensus for exclusion. Let me know what I did wrong and I will re-collapse that unless it is generally frowned upon. (Nice water colors and thanks for sharing them)--Mark Miller (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not a bot it's a script. I don't see any attempt at a collapse, but there is a pair of </noinclude><noinclude> that are the wrong way around. If you think the discussion is no longer relevant to the FAC, it can be moved to the nominations Talk Page here Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/John Barrymore/archive1. (It's empty at the moment, hence the red link.) Graham Beards (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't see the two attempts I made with different mark ups to collapse the content that failed in the history? OK. Sorry, to bother you but thanks for the tip. I'll leave it as is as I am not sure you understand what I was asking but thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I very much like that script. Has this ever been implemented in any other project with adjustments for other types of nomination pages?--Mark Miller (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not implemented anywhere really, you can add it to your common.js page. Graham Beards (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Good Girl Gone Bad/archive3

Can you tell me what's the status of the nomination? I have 4 supports, all the issues cleared and image spotcheck. Thank you. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Have I missed the source review? Graham Beards (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there is no source review actually. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Please request one on the FAC talk page in the grey box at the top of the page. I would do it for you but I have guests with me at the moment. Best wishes, Graham Beards (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I will request one. Cheers and all the best! Happy Xmas too :) — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Hi Graham, I just passed by your talk page to find out how to nominate an article to be featured because I had out a featured tag on Talk:Dolph Ziggler but you removed it as I am 'not a significant contributor'. To make you sure, I did the same with Talk:John Cena and you can remove it if you feel like I am wrong. Besides, I am impressed with your contributions. As you an experienced editor and an administrator, I would also like to know how to create a featured or at least a good article. Thanks and I apologize for my mistake. Ikhtiar H (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The instructions for nominating an article for promotion to FA are here WP:FAC and for GA here WP:GA. Please note the rule about significant contributors. Neither of the articles that you mention are ready for consideration for promotion; there are prose issues and many unsourced statements. The first step towards promoting an article is to improve it based on the GA or FA criteria. This can be done alone or in collaboration with other editors. Both processes take time and committment. Please do not nominate unprepared articles that have not been thoroughly polished. If you think an article is ready for promotion, please discuss this with other editors on the article's talk page before initiating the nomination. Graham Beards (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Trinity (nuclear test)

I have re-nominated Trinity (nuclear test) as a Featured Article Candidate. Any comments that you may have will be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Graham Beards!

Happy New Year!

Graham Beards,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.