User talk:Graham Beards/Archives/2015

Elsevier access

Hello, Graham Beards/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I have responded. I'm very pleased. Graham Beards (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Second article

Gee, short talk page here! With California Diamond Jubilee half dollar having, I think, touched all the bases, I'd like to go ahead and nominate Horace Greeley at FAC. I'm going away on the 26th, and I'd like as much as possible to have the FAC occur while I'm home for access to sources, etc. Many thanks for your consideration.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I archive it often :-) Go ahead. I'm too busy to do FAC tonight, but I will look at you current nom tomorrow. Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Pancreatic cancer

Hello Graham :)

I'm glad to see the page being promoted to FA. While trying to collaborate with the work with CRUK – a project I very much support – I've been contributing to the page as a logged-out IP editor fairly regularly (under four or five addresses), at least since it was put up for PR in mid-November. However, I still haven't completed checking through the article to my own satisfaction. I have particular concerns (touched on here) about the way the opening paragraphs of the Diagnosis section are currently presented, which seems to me to be confusing. In practice, I have found it hard to do certain tasks in the absence of consensus from the nominator – even though I most certainly share his intentions regarding accessibility, especially for people close to patients, a matter discussed in an interesting panel discussion at Wikimania.

Fwiw, my own view is that an FA page should be both readable from start-to-finish, and readily consultable section-by-section. I know Wiki CRUK John has put a lot of thought and effort into trying to provide a genuinely communicative 'through-written' narrative. I think many parts work rather well, but that certain passages (in particular, at the start of ==Diagnosis==) are still problematic.

If some sort of consensus can be reached I'd be glad to continue editing the page (per your closing note) until it's in a condition where I can feel generally more comfortable with it.

A small personal note: I'd also like to clarify that I find the confrontational nature of much dialogue that so often tends to occur among hard-working gf editors, at FAC and elsewhere, one of the least attractive aspects of contributing to Wikipedia.

86.134.203.235 (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC) ex-86.181.67.166, 109.158.8.201, 86.164.164.29, 109.157.83.50, and 86.128.169.211, etc

Hi, it would be best to continue your discussions on the article's Talk Page, not on the FAC page, which will be archived by a bot shortly. Best wishes, and thank you for taking the time to post your message here and your contributions to the FAC. I agree with you about the "least attractive aspects" but I don't think there is a solution. Collaborative writing, particularly on important subjects, can be tricky. Graham Beards (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to thank you for your kind words, which I very much appreciate (perhaps more than you can imagine). Best, 86.134.203.235 (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

...but I have to say that, instead of celebrating for this I find myself left feeling deeply hurt irl for the way the way I have apparently been excluded from the loop. As one of the main contributors (I think) to the page, I feel the need to say that I don't think it was ready yet. 86.134.203.235 (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Elsevier

Hi. I wanted to update you on the status of your Elsevier account. I sent the first list to Elsevier on 12 January. Elsevier reports that they will be e-mailing applicants next week with an access code, which will start your use of the resource. I appreciate your patience with this process. Feel free to contact me with any feedback or questions you have about Elsevier access. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Graham Beards (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antimicrobial resistance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trypanosome. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia clinical review

I clicked on your PubMed profile, which led me to the ebola article. So you managed to turn a Wikipedia FA into a real peer-viewed article? Really? That is one of the coolest things I've ever come across. (Or missed, since it happened a while back.) Is this the only case, or have there been more of these? (And is was this typical of what Open Medicine publishes, or was this something exceptional for them?) Guettarda (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

(I suppose I could have looked up the journal before I made the last comment. Guettarda (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC))

Hi, nice to meet you. I presume you mean the dengue article. I can't take much credit for that; James did all the hard work getting in through peer-review and publication. Most of my other publications are independent of Wikipedia (and indeed predate WP by several decades). Graham Beards (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Having had dengue, you'd think I wouldn't make that mistake :) Guettarda (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it time to replace List of viruses?

A new user has developed an alternate list of viruses (he/she has commented on WP:VIRUS), except this person's list is ordered by taxonomy and not alphabetically. If the "new" list adheres strictly to ICTV-approved classification, would it be better? I certainly wouldn't want there to be two articles for this, considering the sheer number of viruses would make updating both a serious chore. Also, would the List of virus families and List of genera of viruses articles become redundant if the "new" list is adopted? What are your thoughts? ComfyKem (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have much time to spare at the moment to reply fully. The new user's list is based on the Baltimore classification. I have never liked our current List of viruses, which is full of red links, easily vandalized and could eventually run to hundreds of pages. A list more like the one on the ICTV website [1] would be more useful. The new user's list is a good start. Graham Beards (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've just updated List of viruses per ComfyKem's request. I have also updated List of genera of viruses with the same format. I imagine List of virus families ought to be formatted and updated to match as well, and I have proposed this on the talk page of that article. I don't believe that alphabetical lists are made redundant or unnecessary by the taxonomic list, however. Bervin61 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Bosnia FAC

I've dropped the nominator a line with some advice, btw. Bencherlite^Talk 14:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm at work at the moment so my attention is transitory. I was planning to leave a message. Graham Beards (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Burges

Re your very general comment: we are supposed not to speak in general, only specifically for the article in question. (Not that it would show in any given discussion ;) ) - In case you didn't look at the article history: that article had the unspeakable feature which I am supposed not to mention from July 2013 until a few days ago, including TFA date. The question is if by that history, it became something like a community good. - I would think so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Enthiran FAC

Hi Graham. I have nominated the article for FAC. It has received a neutral, two supports and one big oppose from SandyGeorgia (mainly relating to MOSNUM and Citation issues) Many editors requsted me to withdraw the FAC to better shape it. Please state your opinion on whether I should continue the FAC or withdraw it. Thank you. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 04:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Hello, Graham Beards. There's a current astatine FAC, and it raises a question that can't decided on by those who take part in the review. The infobox of the article contains a "pronunciation" box, which contains, "/ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/ // as-tə-teen or as-tə-tin". Is this content perfect or is it redundant? Those who see this as good claim this complies with WP:PRON ("For English, the Wikipedia respelling system, using the {{respell}} template, can be used in addition to the IPA.") The other side claims this is not optimal, and having just pronunciations (but not respellings) would be fine, since those respellings do not compile with the criterion 1a. Here's the infobox in question and here's the discussion, if these are needed. Would you, leaving for now all other things concerning this article aside, consider the current content great, or should it be reduced to just transcriptions?--R8R (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Two FA noms

Hi, I currently have The Tower House at FAC, but Rational Observer is keen to renom Irataba after an extensive peer review. I contributed a fair bit to it and it'll be a duel nom. Is this OK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi DrB, butting since Graham is on hols, yes it’s always okay to be a sole nom of one FAC and a co-nom of another simultaneously. More than that and it becomes a concern… ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Ian, well SRK is going to be renominated sometime but I guess it can wait for the time being!♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Image in 1924 book

Can you advise whether uploading a picture of an Anglo-Saxon ring in a 1924 book would be OK for copyright? Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Dudley Miles, the answer would depend on a number of factors, particularly in what country the book was published - do you have a link we could look at? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria. It is here. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so the book was published in both the UK and Denmark in the same year. Both of those countries base copyright term on the life of the author. Assuming that the book's author (Johannes Brøndsted) is the photographer (unless it's otherwise attributed?), the image would still have been under copyright at the URAA date and so is still copyrighted in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki. I will get access to the book in the next week or so and I will check the photographer. How about this? Another possibility is [2]. According to [3] the author died 1945 so this should be OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Both were published before 1923 so are public domain in the US regardless of their status in their home country. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (collogue) @ 16:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Taj Mahal

Hi, Graham - would you be so kind as to indicate what particular statements in Taj Mahal you feel are in need of citations? Perhaps you could template them for us? [4] Thank you in advance. Atsme☯^Consult 16:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You need to add a source to at least every paragraph. There is no need to add a source for every sentence if it is clear that the same source has been used for all the facts they contain. After this, I suggest a peer review would be the best next stage before a FA nomination. Graham Beards (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

fac

• Hello. I used to be Ling.Nut. I left FAC in a huff a long while ago. I still have no idea whether I will review FACs (no plans at present), but I apologize for being overly huffy back then.• Lingzhi♦(talk) 02:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I remember you well and it's great to see that you have returned. Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

I'd like to nominate Warren G. Harding. My current, Mary Margaret O'Reilly seems ready to go. I'm trying to get Harding through while I still have access to online resources as my term runs out the end of August. It may be renewed but I haven't heard yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay in replying. I have promoted Mary Margaret O'Reilly today. Best wishes, Graham Beards (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Man Down (song)/archive1

It was a nudge for you to re-visit your comment.  — Calvin999 14:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It was bad manners and misuse of the template; please do not do it again. Graham Beards (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

How is it bad manners and misuse? I was simply bringing the nomination back to your attention.  — Calvin999 21:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

And this comment is very rude [5]. You did not ask for my opinion on the current version. You just templated me to say there was a message for me. For what it is worth, I have the FAC on my Watchlist and I have been following the discourse with you and Penguin. There was no need for your "nudge" and publicly (and wrongly) criticising me at the FAC is way out of order. I am minded to register an "oppose" based on your puerile behaviour. I suggest you avoid me for a while. I will not be revisiting the FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I think you're overreacting and taking it a bit to heart. Editors often contact me with a talkback or message saying for me to revisit, what's the problem? I don't see how I was criticising you, all I said was that you hadn't been back to post anything. If it was me, I would have revisited. Calling me puerile isn't exactly good faith, opposing on my "behaviour" could be considered puerile in itself, and suggesting that I avoid you is threatening.  — Calvin999 08:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest FAC

Would you like to post some comments here? Because you did so for my previous FAC, I thought you'd have time for this. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a gentle reminder Kailash29792 (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't comment because that will prevent me from acting as closing coordinator. There are just the two of us at the moment because Ian is travelling. Graham Beards (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Joker FAC

I was working with all but one reviewer who wanted the article to be something it is not. So there was no "reluctance". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Nixon 1968

Why did you archive the Richard Nixon 1968 Campaign nomination? The last input by a reviewer was less than three days ago.   Spartan7W §   00:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Just butting in as one of Graham's fellow FAC coordinators, the issues raised by two experienced reviewers regarding sourcing were quite serious. Taking off my FAC coord hat and speaking as someone who knows a little about the subject, I'd certainly have expected greater use of secondary sources (e.g. White or Nixon bios) that could offer perspectives that contemporary newspaper reports, by their nature, might not. Rejigging the article to incorporate such secondary sources, as well as dealing with the other points raised, would take some time and is best undertaken outside the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I wouldn't by any means suggest losing all the newspapers, or McGinniss' fascinating contemporary book (which I've read), but I think a better balance can be achieved by including more later works. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ian Rose:Got it. I don't actually have that book, or access to it as of now. Will find myself a copy and begin working again. Thanks!   Spartan7W §   02:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Witton Isolation Hospital

Hello! Your submission of Witton Isolation Hospital at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sisters at Heart

Hi Graham,

The "Sisters at Heart" FAC has received three supports, no opposes, a successful image review, and a successful source review and there has been no new activity at the FAC for a week now. Is there anything else that you would like to see at the FAC before it closes?

Neelix (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi David, sorry for the delay in replying. Congratulations, I have just promoted the article. Graham Beards (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Witton Isolation Hospital

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

which and that

Hi Graham, good to meet you at antimicrobial resistance. Would it be possible for you to explain why you changed my grammatically correct 'which' for the subordinated clause to "that" here?

Hi, nice to meet you too. There should have been a comma before "which". Also "which" clauses are nonrestrictive and "that" clauses are restrictive. But often the choice is just a matter of taste in contemporary writing :)

BTW, I have an interest in viruses too. recently wrote up Jamestown Canyon Virus, still looking for a photo to embellish it. I found no pertinent images in the public domain to improve the page. Had written Erin Staples at the CDC if they had an EM photo, but alas they didnt. (she also couldnt give me permission for figure 3. (incidence by state residence) from their recently published article Jamestown Canyon Virus Disease in the United States, 2000-2013.) maybe you can help? --Wuerzele (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice article, except the term "arbovirus" is not used much anymore because it included viruses from many diverse families and it is no longer used in formal taxonomy (and hasn't been for decades). Sadly I don't have any electron micrographs of bunyaviruses. Graham Beards (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I know what you mean, however in the medical world the term is alive and well, as you can see by their publications.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Man Down (song)/archive2

"Clearly there is no consensus". No there wasn't, unlike last time. I think you'll find that I did in fact action pretty much every suggestion left on this FAC. Last time it "wasn't about votes", this time its "no consensus" despite me complying with 99% of what was suggested. Two conflicting statements.  — Calvin999 08:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Calvin999, clearly there was no consensus. The one support the current FAC received was based on a minor edit done during the first nomination. The oppose however was solid. And I myself is not supporting soon; we're on the second section yet. And the FAC has yet again taken on a form of a peer review. I was generally disappointed by the fact that the "opposers" were not invited to the last peer review. I suggest you taking rest from the article and read it after a while. --Efe (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

There were two supports, but failed still to convince the community that there was a consensus to promote the article. Clarification was made here. Just in case somebody happens to read this. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

FA Candidate

Hi, Graham - the reason I created the sub-section was because I felt the suggestions to close should not have been a continuation of the section, Comments from Wehwalt. The reviews were complete, and the close comments were not part of Wehwalt's section, therefore it made sense to me that it should have been separated into a different level. Hope it didn't create a problem. Atsme^📞📧 21:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, a fourth level heading would have been ok; higher levels cause problems in FAC archives, the nomination page and somewhere else that I have forgotten. BTW it wasn't a "suggestion" to close – it was meant to imply that I was considering promotion. Anyhow, no harm done, no problem and thank you for taking the time to explain. Graham Beards (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Kenneth Mayhew

Dear Graham Beards, thank you for your work in coordinating the FA project. As I am not familiar with the projects working I would ike to ask your opinion on whether or not the article Kenneth Mayhew would have a chance as FA candidate. Specifically I would like to know if there are reasons that would mean it is instantly excluded; for example length, or the language or type of sources? Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant

Hi Graham,

Thank you for closing my last FAC. My current FAC for the Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant article has received four supports, with two supporters indicating that they have checked the sources. The FAC has also received an image review and has garnered no opposes. Are there any elements of the article you would like to see discussed further before the FAC is closed?

Neelix (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bootham Crescent/archive1

Hi, just a quick question. This FAC has six users supporting, two users with comments and one user who reviewed the sources. I feel I have adequately resolved the comments and the source review, although those users haven't responded to state they are satisfied with my responses. Will the lack of indication of satisfaction from these users hold back this nomination from passing? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I will revisit your FAC later today. Graham Beards (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Query

Do you think it might be alright to close Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/R U Professional/archive1 ?

It seems to have garnered sufficient unanimous Support.

I ask because I'd like to focus on other Featured quality improvement drives.

Thank you for all you do in this area,

— Cirt (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, — Cirt (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ununseptium/archive3

Isn't it a bit early to close this - I was hoping to post replies this weekend... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your help in bringing Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption to Featured Article status. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sock investigation

You previously warned this user about disruption of our quality review processes, at DIFF.

Therefore, notifying you of a WP:DUCK sock investigation of that account, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama.

Admin action would be appreciated to stop the disruption of Wikipedia's quality review processes including WP:FAC, WP:FLC, and WP:GAN.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Frank Jenner

Hi Graham,

Thank you for closing my last FAC. My current FAC for the Frank Jenner article has received three supports and no opposes. The FAC has also received an image review and a source review. Are there any elements of the article you would like to see discussed further before the FAC is closed?

Neelix (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Back

Hi Graham, I'm back now—I'll slip back into going through FAC when it's convenient. --Laser brain (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I think I'm going to take a wikibreak, if you are OK with continuing to shoulder the load for a while at FAC. I've just had some clown come to one of my FAs (certainly not the first, but the latest in a long line) and accuse me of promotionalism, "standard promotional techniques", and drive-by tag the article. I'm actually physically upset, and that's when it's time to push back your chair and take a break. Please drop me an email if you need to get a hold of me, as I won't be checking in here. --Laser brain (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that Andy, take care and hope to see you back soon. I've just returned from my overseas trip and was planning on easing back into things over the next week or so, so Graham pls feel to call on me beforehand. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

95.145.48.211

Um IPs aren't supposed to be blocked indefinitely... GiantSnowman 20:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I know and I will make the block finite later. I think we need to get the message across that we do not tolerate disruptive editing. Graham Beards (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Khrushchev and Brezhnev.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Khrushchev and Brezhnev.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Jacob van Ruisdael FAC

Hi Graham, I have a question about my first FAC. I was surprised to see my FAC was closed. I have worked on all comments. Was I meant to do anything else other than respond to all comments? Was I meant to ask those who commented for a Support/Oppose vote? There were a few people who left comments and did not respond to my fixes. Or do you ask privately for their vote? Anyway, as I am keen to make the article better, so what are the next steps for me? Thanks. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Edwininlondon, I'll be ready to support it next time around as all my concerns were addressed and I just hadn't got around to supporting it (it was closed earlier than I expected). Don't take it being archived as any kind of insult; because WP:FAC is such a bloated page, the delegates have no real alternative but to pull things off it to keep it at a manageable size. ‑ iridescent 08:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you iridescent, and... I never privately ask for votes. It is an excellent article and I look forward to seeing it back at FAC. (You can renominate two weeks after the bot has run). When I read the article I noticed some unsourced statements and others that didn't quite support the text.(Reference 23, for example). Another example is this "Some have inferred from his two famous paintings of a Jewish cemetery that Ruisdael was Jewish, but once again there is no evidence to support this," which needs a source and is a too vague a way ("some") to start a paragraph. There were some dash errors, which I have fixed. Although close to FA standard, the article needs a little more polishing, which is best done away from our (bloated) FAC page. When the article is renominated, you can invite the reviewers to comment but please do not canvas for support. Best wishes, Graham Beards (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

True Detective FAC

Hi Graham! I just read the FA rules and see that FACs that received minimal feedback can be renominates within the 2 week limit, and unfortunately my nomination did not get much attention. I do not want to go into it prematurely and just want to make sure that it was the exception, so it be acceptable for me to renominate the article within the 2 week limit? :) DAP388 (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can. Please mention this discussion in your nomination statement. Graham Beards (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of York City F.C. (1908–80)/archive1

Hi, do you feel this nomination is within striking distance of passing? It has three supports, and the points raised from the image and source reviews have been addressed. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Naïve realism (psychology)

Hello, Graham Beards, and thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia and looking over the naive realism page! I wanted to discuss the copyright issue with you. I expanded this page from a stub, which had the text in question on it since the page was first created a few years ago. While I was editing the page, I left it in there. I was under the impression that quoted text was okay so long as there was proper attribution. The text is in a block quote, and it is attributed. Please let me know the best way to proceed, as I want this page to adhere to Wikipedia's standards! Mcooperwhite (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have replied on the article's Talk Page. Graham Beards (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

London Spy

You said you were watching the above article and talk page. I was in a content dispute there with ERIDU-DREAMING a few days ago. Since your warning he has not edited there as such, but instead has taken to IP editing. I realised this from the style, the automatic reversions he made and unwillingness to discuss anything. The edits are being made from IPs 88.104.140.90, 88.104.131.244, and a few other nearby IPs. Which is the same IP range as 88.104.129.115 which was used by ERIDU-DREAMING when he forgot to login in this edit when he abused me. (He then logged in to revise the same comment, so it's quite certainly him.) He seems to feel he can now edit war with impunity. 202.81.248.99 (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"He seems to feel he can now edit war with impunity." That is a bit rich given that you have made as many reverts as I have "202.81.248.99." What I have also done is pretty much written the entire article. Any impartial observer would recognise it is a good effort. Your contribution "202.81.248.99" is a very poor summary of one episode, and continuous reversions of the shooting script titles. Do you think you deserve some sort of award for contributing so little? Unlike you I believe in Wikipedia. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I see the page in question has been semi-protected. I think it would be a good idea for both of you to take a break from editing the article. ERIDU, I see you have a history of edit-warring, which has resulted in blocks on more than one occasion. Sadly, this recent example has done little to enhance your status here. Your comment above "Do you think you deserve some sort of award for contributing so little?" is out of order and could justify a block alone. If it is the case that you have been editing as an IP, this is considered WP:SOCK and if proven is also grounds for blocking. You say you believe in Wikipedia. Sadly, the evidence is to the contrary. Graham Beards (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

viral disease

Hello, can you point me in the direction of the Wikipedia rules regarding making plots and figures that tell the written story in a different way? I do see other articles that have plots and figures that have the same information presented in the text simply put in another format to help the user understand the concepts in a better way. Thanks Cleverwater (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)cleverwater

Hi, my issue with the diagram is that it is unencyclopedic and looks more like a student's crib sheet. It uses unacceptable, made up terms such as "Zhickenpox" "Zhingles" "sight-omegovius" "koriza" (presumably this means "coryza"), "hemofever" and so on. If you can point me to some reliable sources that support the use of these novel terms then I might reconsider by opinion. In the meantime, may I remind you that our aim here is produce a professional high quality encyclopedia. When my colleagues in the lab saw your diagram they laughed, so at least it has some entertainment value, but it does not belong here. Graham Beards (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2016 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / – SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Gavin - much appreciated. Best wishes. Graham. Graham Beards (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Best wishes. Graham. Graham Beards (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks James. Graham Beards (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Graham Beards: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Frankie _talk 14:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)