User talk:Graham Beards/Archives/2017

Forensic Chemistry FAC

As this review is quite long and complicated (and I'm rather new at this!), I just wanted to double check that you are happy with the spot check at the FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a spotcheck, so I can't 100% sure, but I don't think there will be any issues with verification, and I can tell be the prose style that one "voice" is writing. Best. Graham Beards (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Photon Article

I saw your message on the talk page of photon and I added a response. In addition to citations, is there anything else you think the article could use some improvement on? Popcrate (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acne vulgaris FAC

Nice to see you at WT:FAC, and thanks for your support. In other FAC news, the Acne vulgaris article (FAC here) has hit a few bumps. We have a few supports but a fresh oppose. I suspect the nominator is a little disillusioned and I'd hate to see the prior work go down the tubes like a few others have recently. I know you are a science-y, virus-y, er... disease-y sort of person (see my science knowledge come to the fore?), and I wondered if a) this falls into your areas of expertise and b) you could have a look and see what you think or if there is a way forward. Or if you can think of anyone else who is active, medically inclined and knows their way around FAC. If not, no worries. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Daley

Hi there,

I wonder is it possible to change visibility of the edit summary made by ClueBot NG since it shows us the user who made the possible vandalism, and that you have already changed the visibility of that IP user? 86.154.25.28 (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address is currently blocked following further vandalism. There is no point in changing the visibility of the ClueBot edit. Graham Beards (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Introduction to viruses

Graham, I've suggested this one as a rerun at WP:TFA on December 1, World AIDS Day. Has the article held up well over the years? - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the linkchecker found minor issues. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dank - yes it has been well maintained. It needs a few more citations here and there to meet current FA standards and the Shors reference, which I have used, needs updating to the 2017 edition. I have this, so that will not be a problem. With regards to the linechecker issues, all the links to the abstracts on PubMed are ok, it's just the links to the DOIs that are glitchy. We could delete these, but some bot will come along and put them back. I think it's safe to leave them be. I'll update some of the older citations while I'm at it. Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aha ... thanks for explaining, and thanks for working on this, it'll be an excellent rerun. - Dank (push to talk) 12:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemiology / transmission of viruses

I changed that section on the Virus page because the paragraph on transmission has nothing to do with epidemiology. It's actually about the mechanism of transmission, which is why I moved that to a separate section. Have you read that section? You should before you revert such edits. Thanks! Peteruetz (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was rude. You should check to see who wrote the article before implying they haven't read it. And what was all that nonsense you added about quarantine? Graham Beards (talk) 15:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tsar Nicholas II Family Remains.jpg needs authorship information

Dear uploader:
The media file you uploaded as File:Tsar Nicholas II Family Remains.jpg appears to be missing information as to one (or more) of the following :

The author or creators of the work, (including information as to the author's lifespan).

Where and how this particular version was obtained.

When the work was created,

If you did provide such information, it is currently confusing for others trying to make use of the image.
It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.
Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|Graham Beards/Archives/2017}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
or use the {{own}} template.

Please also add authorship and sourcing to other files you created or uplopaded. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Thanks for updating the file information. It's appreciatedShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! Talk about tag for the sake of tagging! Let me try and explain:

The author or creators of the work, (including information as to the author's lifespan).

Try reading the "Summary" section and more specifically, Author

Where and how this particular version was obtained.

Again, try reading the "Summary" section and this time, more specifically, Description

When the work was created

Again, still, try reading the "Summary" section and this time, more specifically, Date

ShakespeareFan00, please read things before you press "Save changes", in future. Cassianto ^Talk 18:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlocked

Hi there! I wondered if you'd have time to leave some comments on my FAc above? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus Falco

Discussion started, welcome aboard!--Galassi (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viroid

Hi Graham Beards, Dr. Diener is currently working on the german Viroid Article. Imho Prions are smaller infectious agents, but he wrote viroids were. I do not want to revert his edit. Any tips? All the best, --Ghilt (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prions, at around 10nM are larger than viroids, which on average only have around 200bp. Graham Beards (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but a single PrP - already being infectious - has 253/208 amino acids, whereas viroids begin at around 241 nucleotides, and a nt has a mass of about 4 aa. Cheers, --Ghilt (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seems to me that we need to clarify what we mean by "size"; do we mean length, mass, mol. weight, etc? Graham Beards (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but regarding to the size of PrP of 10 nm, are you referring to this or this? Regarding the molecular weight, i guess the 21 kDa of PrP^Sc are well beneath the approx. 200 nt x 0.55 kDa/nt of about 100 KDa. And i tend to get cautious when superlatives ('smallest') are added into an article without reference, as in this case. --Ghilt (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i retract my objections, the 'Encyclopedia of Virology' (2008) explicitly mentions "Viroids are the smallest known agents of infectious disease – small (246–401 nt), highly structured, circular, single-stranded RNAs that lack detectable messenger RNA activity", cheers, --Ghilt (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On alteration of figures

Hi, Graham Beards,

You reverted my edit on Introduction to viruses not as a good faith revert, but revert which in its masked meaning, means I am some vandal sort or at least vandal-like. But why first I reverted to last revision? the page came in RC with IP user altering figure, of course, without any explanation. I opened the page, but in the paragraph of the figure there is no inline citation to verify whether the change is justified. I diligently checked few revisions back and the earlier figure (which the IP user removed) is the one I saw including in your own revision like here. So, I reverted it and left explanation that the change is unsourced, hence unjustified. Now why I write this? It is because of future. I specifically patrol filter 391 which tags Users, (majority iPs) who habitually change height/weight arbitrarily, and I used to scout for general figure alteration like that one because it is one of the subtle ways of eroding Wikipedia image at large. So should I now left all that alterations (figures, monies, height/weight) and "assume good faith" that the the IP user made valid correction even if previous revision didn't support that? -Ammarpad (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlocked

Hi there! I saw you're an experienced FAC editor. With that in mind, I thought of asking you to look over the article above and to kinda copy–edit it (it isn't long, so it shouldn't take that much). Unlocked, a FAC, has received some support, but an experienced user complained over the article's prose, with his main issues being "chopped" sentences (and maybe some other minor stuff you could correct). With that being said, would you have time to edit it? Best regards! Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Graham Beards. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]