User talk:Graham Beards

Hi Graham. Hope that you’re well. I have been thinking about taking a stab at upgrading a GA I’ve been involved in to FA status. Two I have been thinking about are antibiotic sensitivity testing and ureter. Do you think either need much more work in this regard?

As it is I understand my next step after getting your advice will be to put them up for a pre FA peer review and proceed from there. I’d be keen to get your opinion on this plan!

Cheers, Tom.Tom (LT) (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Tom (LT) (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, It's a pity Disk diffusion test was never merged with the sensitivity testing article as there is a lot of duplication. I wonder how many labs are using the Vitek system? I know of two near me. We might need to include this. The section on EUCAST and CLSI needs expanding to include, for example how zone sizes corelate with MIC, and how MICs compare with achievable antibiotic levels in the blood and tissues and the use of "expert rules". It should not take that much work. The flow of the prose need polishing. For example, this sentence needs to be moved further down "There are many factors that can affect the results of antibiotic sensitivity testing, including failure of the instrument, temperature, moisture, and potency of the antimicrobial agent." The reader hasn't been told about instruments and other methods at this stage. I didn't see "synergy" mentioned (or the opposite - I've forgotten what it is called). Ureter is looking good, but I confess anatomy is not my speciality. Both articles are certainly good candidates for a FA. Were you planning just to choose one to begin with? Graham Beards (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation

	The honourable opposer's award
	By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of one or more well argued opposes at FAC. I may or or may not agree with your reasoning and/or your oppose, but I take a Voltarian attitude towards your right to state it. Thank you, such stands help to make Wikipedia stronger. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog Graham Beards (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Symphyotrichum lateriflorum comments

Hi, Graham! Thank you for your (missing) comments regarding the FAR for Symphyotrichum lateriflorum. I see that you reverted them before I had a chance to respond, so I maybe you answered your own questions? If not, let me know and I'll be glad to address them. Eewilson (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

science cabal

are you joining the corrupt cabal of science that are covering up for eachother? 2600:1700:8660:E180:DDAB:3CAE:89A4:5D33 (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC) feel free to answer. 2600:1700:8660:E180:DDAB:3CAE:89A4:5D33 (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]