User talk:Graham Beards

Archives

2007

Archive

2008

2009

2010

2011

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by .

Virus

"why the apostrophe?" => typo on my part. I meant to have single quotes around the term 'quasi-equivalence' but if you think it doesn't need them its good with me.DrMicro (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no I don't think they are needed. Just as we wouldn't put them around Euclidean geometry. But I think the addition of the definitions of Triangulation Number and how these apply to the structure of viral capsids will be difficult for some readers to follow in its current format. It's something I deliberately avoided, to be honest. I now have second thoughts on this, since it is in the textbooks. I'll give this some thought and perhaps we could discuss this on the Virus Talk Page? By the way, I thought it was a poor show when Inovirus was tagged for deletion four minutes after you created it. I wouldn't have "redlinked" all those species mind you, it'll be years before all those articles are created. Best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your kind words. I agree with you over the triangulation number page. The explanation *is* a bit tricky without decent diagrams but the T = xyz is a recurrent theme in the virology of iscosahedral viruses. Along with their size it is the distinguishing feature for many of them on EM. (EM is very much in use as a diagnostic tool for samples with unknown viruses. PCR is only so much use when the genomes whose genes have no known homology.) I have been thinking of creating one so that all the viral pages with T = xyz notes on them can link to it. This T = xyz used to bug the heck out of me when I first came across it and I'm sure its the same now for anyone coming across it for the first time. BTW if you have some decent diagrams that can be used on WP for this page I would be very grateful for them.

Re redlinks: That isn't necessarily true. The CTX phage carries the cholera toxin so IMHO that alone needs a page. Some of the other viruses in that group also can carry the cholera toxin - a relatively recent discovery. I haven't yet figured out *all* the viruses that do carry it - its on the ToDo list - but all the known ones belong to this group. Given the importance of this toxin in the pathogenesis of cholera it was going to be close to the top of my ToDo list - I had planned a bit more on the other ssDNA viruses first. It's a major pain to create a page, then track down the genus, copy the virus name into the genus page and make sure it all works. Its a lot easier to create a page if the name of the virus is on the page in front of you. I have created hundreds of pages for biological species off such listings. I have left a note for the editor who deleted it to see what he/she says. IMHO its much better to light a candle (by creating a page) than to bewail the darkness (deleting species names because they are red linked). But as they say - your mileage may vary.DrMicro (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a different topic I am thinking of creating a couple of templates for the viruses once the families are checked over. The current one with the Baltimore classification is too much for a single page (IMHO). I was thinking of one for the dsDNA, ssDNA, dsRNA, dsRNA viruses. The other groups seem a little small perhaps to justify a separate template. I would be very grateful for your thoughts on this.DrMicro (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be careful about Wikipedia policies on this. I think the definition of triangulation numbers would be better placed in Capsid rather than Virus. I have used EM and PCR to discover viruses – and had one success with the former method. In my experience, triangulation numbers are not that important in clinical virology and EM is not used very often these days for routine detection of viruses. We use serology and PCR. Perhaps you are a plant virologist? I'm a clinical one, so maybe our experiences differ. I find the Baltimore Classification useful in teaching and I don't think it's too much for a single page. In fact, given this is an encyclopaedia and not a virology journal, I think separate templates for different viral replication methods would overwhelm our readers. It's difficult knowing when to stop adding information. I could have given the consensus RNA sequences for all the genomic RNAs of rotavirus when I wrote the article – but one has to stop and let PubMed take over at some point. With regard to your later comments, please be careful of original research and the use of primary and secondary sources especially when writing about "a relatively recent discovery". Graham Colm (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EM is extremely useful for classification of viruses from environmental sources where no one has a clue what kind of viruses they are. Examples of this include the Sulfolobus turreted icosahedral virus and the Malacoherpesviridae. It has been invaluable in the delimination of several families that infect archaea such as the Bicaudaviridae. In clinical virology most of the likely organisms are fairly well know and it is of less use than serology or PCR there.

I was thinking of creating an entirely separate page for triangulation number where capsid and the viruses can link to.

What I had in mind for the templates was similar to that for the classification of the Apicomplexa which is IMHO quite useful. Here is the page I had in mind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Alveolata

DrMicro (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyscape access

Do you have a paid account there? I get the site has exceeded monthly quota message when trying. Brad (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I pay for premium searches. Graham Colm (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your budget allows please check the current articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured article review. I guess you're paying 5 cents a search though. Brad (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, what you ask is more demanding on my time than my money :-) Copyscape does not set off buzzers and bells when it detects duplicated content – it displays a list of links to websites with similar content. Following the links than shows the matching content highlighted. Then I have to check the possibility that the material was originally derived from Wikipedia. Often this involves delving into an article's history – sometimes as far back as a year – in attempt to establish priority. Wikipedia's content is significantly reused (often without attribution), and although I have begun to recognise quickly the sites that often do this, it can be difficult and requires judgement. For established articles, such as those that are at FAR, the task is more onerous because of their longevity and subsequent, more frequent copying of their content by other sites. So, I can't really commit the time needed for your request, sorry. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It's more involved than I thought. Thanks for explaining. Brad (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester Castle

Graham, I would have thought commas rather than dashes ought to be used: "... their construction, in the wake of the conquest of 1066, helped the Normans ..." rather than "their construction – in the wake ... of 1066 – helped the Normans". See Comma#Parenthetical_phrases or MOS:COMMA. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:EMDASH. The choice is pretty much stylistic – that's why I called it a "suggestion" in my edit summary. Graham Colm (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note subsection 2 of WP:EMDASH says "Dashes can clarify the sentence structure when there are already commas or parentheses, or both." which rather suggests to me that dashes should be a fallback position. Ultimately you are quite correct though that it is a matter of style, so I'll bow to your judgement. I certainly don't wish to provoke a lengthy discussion about minutiae! Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mention you here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) again at Featured article candidacies

Hey GrahamColm, I see you were a reviewer at one of Sevastopol's many reviews. As it's last FAC was closed due to low participation, I"d like you to come and review it for it's current FAC, in order to get a better picture of its current situation. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorine FAC =

Hey there! You participated at the previous fluorine FAC, so it may be interesting for you to know a new FAC has been started. A little of new content has been added since, so feel free to comment it. A support vote would be surely welcome, but so will be every comment :) Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new medical resource

Please note that there is a new freely accessible medical resource, MedMerits (to which I'm a medical advisor) on neurologic disorders. A discussion on ELs to MedMerits and medical ELs in general is currently in progress ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world"). Presto54 (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]