User talk:Graham Beards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:GrahamColm)
Jump to: navigation, search
one of my diagrams

Elsevier access[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Graham Beards. 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 remove this notice 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

I've dropped the nominator a line with some advice, btw. BencherliteTalk 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. AtsmeConsult 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)