Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I see that you have promoted the article. However I was only about halfway through my review. I suppose that my review was not fast enough for you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Graham. Normally I would be glad to help you out with this, but lately I've been under fire for reverting people, so I'm choosing my battles. Maybe Doc is right that it should be nomed for deletion. At least then, everyone would be able to make their arguments, and it might get settled once and for all, versus the back-and-forth that I could see developing. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Can I just make it clear to you, in case you are in any doubt, that your criticisms were both pertinent and valued.
Thank you for pointing out my overuse of phrases beginning with "with". I had not noticed the repetitiousness of it, but it all showed up when I did a count on the word.
My gripe was brought on by the fact that the same individual whose numerous tweaks to the article required extensive correction, then requested that someone else should "tighten" it. So far three people have "tightened" the prose, each time introducing more errors than the process was worth.
I don't know why, given the advanced state of the article,and the FA process, more people don't simply leave the sort of message that you left, which was welcome and brought immediate response.
There are a several other editors who, in the past few days, have applied themselves to correcting things and caused no problems at all.
Amandajm (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Graham, just promoted one and was about to archive the one you did -- would you like to carry on through the list, because I'm quite happy to work on other things if you're not pressed for time... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It is important to document the inhibition of cytomegalovirus replication by inhibitors of (glucose to fatty acid conversion enzymes)
why don't you do it yourself. I am disabled and have very little time.
This is what I put:
Inhibition of cytomegalovirus replication by inhibitors of (glucose to fatty acid conversion enzymes)
HCMV = human cytomegalovirus
ACC = acetyl-CoA carboxylase (catalyzes the conversion of acetyl-CoA into malonyl-CoA, requires biotin, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetyl-CoA_carboxylase)
TOFA = 5-tetradecyloxy-2-furoic acid
C75 = trans-4-carboxy-5-octyl-3-methylene-butyrolactone
FAS = fatty acid synthase
Treatment (10 mg ml-1) with 5-tetradecyloxy-2-furoic acid (TOFA), an ACC inhibitor, resulted in a more than 1000-fold reduction in HCMV replication. C75 (trans-4-carboxy-5-octyl-3-methylene-butyrolactone), an inhibitor of FAS, resulted in a more than 100-fold effect at the same dose enzymes that build fatty acids, acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACC) and fatty acid synthase (FAS)(http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-09/uorm-ead092608.php)
Many viruses, including influenza, HIV and hepatitis, use those same fatty acids to build instead their viral envelopes, outer coatings that help them penetrate human cells.
To investigate whether this requirement extended to other enveloped viruses, the team measured influenza A replication in the presence of the same TOFA and FAS inhibitors, and found similar reductions in replication. Influenza A has little in common with HCMV except for its lipid envelope.
Extensive clinical testing would be needed to draw conclusions about the safety of TOFA and C75, or similar compounds, as antiviral treatment. That said, the team took an early look at toxicity, exposing uninfected fibroblasts to C75 or TOFA for 96 hours. They found that the drugs blocked HCMV replication without causing cell toxicity or self-destruction (apoptosis).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accabin (talk • contribs) 14:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
why don't you put this information yourself? It is very important that professionals trying to get information about human cytomegalovirus find the fact about the inhibition of cytomegalovirus replication by inhibitors of (glucose to fatty acid conversion enzymes). This is valid relevant scientific information, that is currently not present, please don't censor it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accabin (talk • contribs) 23:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
important to document the inhibition of cytomegalovirus replication by inhibitors of (glucose to fatty acid conversion enzymes)
http://www.eurekalert.org/ and pubmed are not copyrighted websites, I am including them as reference in the addition I am putting
I added content to another article by copying/pasting/summerizing important points from http://www.eurekalert.org/ and included the reference at the end of the article, nobody complained. This is what I am planning to add. Please either add the information yourself or let me do it. If you want to contribute to general knowledge about , start wikipedia pages about (TOFA = 5-tetradecyloxy-2-furoic acid and C75 = trans-4-carboxy-5-octyl-3-methylene-butyrolactone), I also put a copy on my website http://www.nodextrose.org/
Inhibition of cytomegalovirus replication by inhibitors of (glucose to fatty acid conversion enzymes)
HCMV = human cytomegalovirus
ACC = acetyl-CoA carboxylase (catalyzes the conversion of acetyl-CoA into malonyl-CoA, requires biotin (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetyl-CoA_carboxylase" target="new">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetyl-CoA_carboxylase</a>))
TOFA = 5-tetradecyloxy-2-furoic acid
C75 = trans-4-carboxy-5-octyl-3-methylene-butyrolactone
FAS = fatty acid synthase(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatty_acid_synthase" target="new">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatty_acid_synthase</a>)
Treatment (10 mg ml-1 or 10g l-1) with 5-tetradecyloxy-2-furoic acid (TOFA), an ACC inhibitor, resulted in a more than 1000-fold reduction in HCMV replication. C75 (trans-4-carboxy-5-octyl-3-methylene-butyrolactone), an inhibitor of FAS, resulted in a more than 100-fold effect at the same dose enzymes that build fatty acids, acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACC) and fatty acid synthase (FAS).
Many viruses, including influenza, HIV and hepatitis, use those same fatty acids to build instead their viral envelopes, outer coatings that help them penetrate human cells.
To investigate whether this requirement extended to other enveloped viruses, the team measured influenza A replication in the presence of the same TOFA and FAS inhibitors, and found similar reductions in replication. Influenza A has little in common with HCMV except for its lipid envelope.
Extensive clinical testing would be needed to draw conclusions about the safety of TOFA and C75, or similar compounds, as antiviral treatment. That said, the team took an early look at toxicity, exposing uninfected fibroblasts to C75 or TOFA for 96 hours. They found that the drugs blocked HCMV replication without causing cell toxicity or self-destruction (apoptosis).(<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3126312/" target="new">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3126312/</a> , <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001594/" target="new">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001594/</a> and <a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-09/uorm-ead092608.php" target="new">http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-09/uorm-ead092608.php</a>)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Accabin (talk • contribs) 21:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd determined to stay away from that, but I just couldn't bite my tongue any longer. Eric Corbett 23:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Graham,
I'm not sure if this is feasible, since I don't really know all the politics/mechanics involved in FAC's; however, I was wondering if it would be alright to ask for an extension of the amphetamine FAC for 1-2 weeks due to the lack of available reviewers over the holidays (an issue brought up on WT:MED around that time) and pending feedback from both Axl, who started reviewing recently, and Anypodetos, who has indicated he hasn't had a break to finish his review. If not, I could probably contact them individually for their input. I don't expect Aa77zz (talk · contribs) to finish his review since he hasn't responded to any of my four (now five with this ping) queries after my attempts to address his concerns though. I think the main benefit of an extension would be that, even if the article isn't promoted, the FAC feedback will be in the FAC archive instead of userpages when I renominate it.
Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm assuming you didn't see my post at the FAC since you didn't respond, so I'll post here.
Why did you close the nomination when there were still comments being made? Two reviewers had just left me more comments yesterday. I could understand if comments were not being made for a few days, but that was not the case as comments were still being made as of yesterday morning. You should be more considerate of the nominator and the reviewers because it is very annoying to have a review closed when comments are still being made, let alone it's the second time it was closed (first time for lack of feedback). But then I really start getting feedback and what happens? You close it. I'm not saying I'd be able to satisfy the last two reviewers and that they would support, but I would have liked to have had more comments if they had more and to see if their previous points were satisfied. With your closure, it feels like it's been a waste of time, and now I have to wait another two weeks to renominate. We editors do have lives outside of editing Wikipedia.
As to those comments you had pointed out about support, if those reviewers see no issues and feel the article meets the criteria and they support because of that, why does it make it hard to decide if the article should pass or not? If they see no issues with the article, how are they going to have critical comments? --JDC808 ♫ 14:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Now you just sound condescending. --JDC808 ♫ 22:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for helping me with the FA nomination. I don't know how to do this FA stuff. Hopefully everything is fixed and where it needs to be now. JeremeK (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your recent work at AYE. I guess I need to watch-out for fused participles, and I think I can see from your edits what I was doing wrong, so thanks! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Graham,
Can I have permission to reopen the amphetamine FAC a day early? I'll be a bit busy on Wednesday (Wednesday marks 2 weeks from the Jan 22 close).
Best, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Your upload of File:Bishop,Flewett,Kapikian.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe that my Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū nomination is about ready to promote. May I nominate another article in the meantime?
Hi, I nominated Millwall F.C.–West Ham United F.C. rivalry. You archived it just as we were going through the final stage of the source review. We addressed all comments and suggestions. You mentioned 'clumsy phrases'. It's gone through numerous copy edits and we satisfied each reviewer. If you had pointed out what phrases you thought were clumsy, they would've been addressed. It's quite disheartening after months of work on my first FAC, no opposes and the support of Ian Rose. BillyBatty (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Graham. I was wondering if it would be okay for me to nom Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix at FAC even though Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Are You Experienced/archive1 is still open. I don't foresee a lot of work being needed at either article, so it would be no trouble for me to field them both at once. What do you think? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Your upload of File:Caliciviruses2.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the explanation of virus sizes in the Introduction to viruses article should be improved, rather than just reverted. As I noted on the talk page, I don't think saying they're about 1/100 the size of bacteria conveys the considerable range of virus sizes, nor whether one is speaking of volume or linear dimensions. And since all the readers are eukaryotes, often without knowing it, a comparison to eukaryotic cell sizes might also belong in the introduction. The question of how, and in how much detail, to explain virus sizes in this introductory article is nontrivial, but appears not to have taken up at any length on the talk page, so I think there is room for discussion and improvement. A picture might also help, say of a bacterium infected by multiple phages, perhaps included further on in the article, to go with the picture of the lymphocyte infected by multiple HIVs.CharlesHBennett (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Despite the uniform high quality of this article, I still think the initial description of virus sizes can be improved, and I have tried to do so, by deferring comparison to bacteria to the subsequent Size section. My objection to "100 times smaller" was not addressed in the discussions you cited, where someone objected (contrary to standard English usage) that "100 times smaller" meant something different from "1/100 the size". The potential ambiguity I am concerned with comes instead from whether size refers to volume or linear dimensions such as length or diameter. This ambiguity is avoided by stating sizes in units such as nm.
On a lesser matter, I agree that most viruses are rather compact in shape, but a few are quite elongated (e.g. TMV). The confusion that might cause is already nicely avoided by the example of how many viruses would need to be placed side by side to stretch one centimetre.CharlesHBennett (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. With reference to your comment at my RfA in December 2013, I'm working on it. I thought you might be interested to know, but please don't read this as a request to commence the reviews yourself. It's not. However, please feel free to pass the word on if you wish! In any case, I'll be waiting patiently. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies if I'm spamming. This nom has been active for 38 days. The initial concerns with Ike Altgens have long since been addressed, and a great deal of additional work has been done, including a recheck of its sources and the addition of a free image courtesy the subject's nephew. I believe this article is ready for promotion and would greatly appreciate any attention you're willing to give its nom. Thanks in advance. :) —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 19:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey there. Just letting you know that the promotion bot still hasn't processed some of the week's promotions. You promoted two on the 21st and one on the 19th that still haven't been handled. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!
It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:
Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
That FAC only had one very open-ended oppose that didn't specify specific issues, and the sole reply did not reply with specific issues. I don't believe that is a rightful closure given how actively the nom has dealt with issues and considering again that the lone opposer didn't respond when the issues were dealt with. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
In my continued review of the page Platelet, a came upon a paragraph that was copied word for word from the abstract of a peer reviewed journal "Blood". Whoever added this to the platelet page DID reference the article they copied from - but is exact copying allowed even with attribution?
I have moved the paragraph to the bottom of the section titled Blood disorders for the time being. Thanks in advance for your input. IiKkEe (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Lots of subjects to cover with you.
Thanks for moving the images, and replacing the blood smear. It looks much better.
I have accidently deleted part of two references when I was copying and pasting whole sections as part of reorganizing the page. The references are currently numbered 6 and 25; a previous version on 15 Mar has the undamaged citations: the numbers there are 17 and 9. Could you repair these citations? Also current citation 6 seems to have had something wrong with it since before I started editing: could you take a look at it too?
As you have gently pointed out to me, additions need to be referenced. I need to confess that I was not aware of this when I started: I looked at the page, noted how little of what was there was referenced, assumed it was OK to add unreferenced material and proceeded.
Some of what I have done involved adding/changing section titles and moving material to fit under the new sections: presumably no problems there. But what I have also done is re-word, replace and delete unreferenced material and leaving it unreferenced. (I have been careful not to delete any material which was referenced.) And worst of all, I have added unreferenced material of my own.
Two other sections I have edited without referencing are Coagulation, and High Molecular Weight Kinase. Please revert all the changes I made in Coagulation.
Regarding Platelet and High Molecular Weight Kinase, as I see it, your decision is whether to tolerate the additional unreferenced material for the sake of the improved organization, or delete all my changes and revert back to before me. I am not in a position to begin referencing my additions. I will of course respect and accept your decision.
I sincerely apologize for the trouble I have caused.
IiKkEe (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Since I wrote to you about 8 hours ago, I see you have not made any changes or replied: that's good: it gives me a chance to say more. Also since then, I've read your response on the talk page to my suggestions about moving the images, and read the section you suggested on "Be bold - go for it". Great timing. So here are more thoughts and questions.
I noticed that in your reply you used the phrases "my picture and "my diagram": that helps me to know you have a vested interest in this page. Have you contributed text to this page? Have you edited it on your own initiative or just when things have been pointed out to you as I did? What is your level of knowledge about platelets?
Reading the "Bold" section has reassured me somewhat that perhaps not everything I changed was a mistake. But things are so intertwined now, the decision as to whether to keep all or none or some of my changes will be difficult, whether for me to "Boldly" continue to be involved, or to leave or to you and others. Any thoughts on how to proceed?
If I do decide to continue, should I be bold, or use the platelet talk page, or use your talk page to discuss issues if I don't feel bold?
I am not an expert in platelets but I do have a working knowledge, I have done some online reading, and my wife has a platelet disorder, which keeps me involved. I would like to tell you about some of my thoughts when I first read the platelet page, and some examples of specific problems I tried to fix, and which will still need fixing if you delete my fixes.
Before I do that I want to send this much to you to go along with what I sent last night, so you see them together. I'll return after a break.
IiKkEe (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I see you fixed the references - thanks for that too. I certainly agree it is best to add references as one goes along. The situation I found myself in, when I first read the Platelet page in March was - what if anything to do when I read an unreferenced statement that was clearly wrong based on my general knowledge, if I did not want to delve into the literature for the best reference? That would be a daunting and time consuming task I don't want to undertake. I chose to replace an incorrect unreferenced statement with a correct unreferenced statement - neither ideal. And I certainly understand and accept the risk my edit could be deleted by other editors because it's unreferenced.
I'll use the Platelet talk page for further discussion on content.
Thanks again for helping me understand how Wikipedia works.
IiKkEe (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
IiKkEe (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I left out two "{" - see my latest edit to the article. A script will complete the citation later. Graham Colm (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC) PS. You might have to flush your PC's cache. (Try the F5 key - but this depends on which browser you are using). Graham Colm (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what a cache is, or how or why to flush it. Two more requests for help: this is about changing the text under two illustrations which I don't know how to do. The first is your new platelets picture: if you agree, would you change the words "Latin thrombocytes" to "Platelets"? I believe these are not synonyms, and have avoided the word "thrombocytes" throughout the article.
Second, next to the Aggregation section, if you agree, would you change the text under the picture from "Platelet clumps" to "Aggregated platelets"? That will match the term in the narrative.
Thanks.
IiKkEe (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the cached page explanation. And thanks for changing the text on the smear.
IiKkEe (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I would like to gently persuade you that thrombocyte should not be used as a synonym for platelet. Here is a reference from Michelson's book Platelets, Third Edition, Part I, chapter 1, Summary, Page 3: "Polyploid megakaryocytes and their progeny, nonnucleated platelets, are found only in mammals. In all other animal species, cells involved in hemostasis and blood coagulation are nucleated. The nucleated cells primarily involved in nonmammalian, vertebrate hemostasis are designated (italics)thrombocytes(close italics) to distinguish them from nonnucleated platelets".
IiKkEe (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
That's only for non-mammals. They are synonyms according to The U.S. National Library of Medicine and although the term platelet is more often used, thrombocyte is retained for conditions such as thrombocytopenia. By the way, you are still adding references incorrectly. You have to include the full template (not just the pmid number) as shown here: {{cite pmid|number goes here!}} Graham Colm (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I hope I'm putting this in the right place. Thanks for telling me a second time how to reference: I've now done a couple successfully. I've corrected the external link I added, which works when I type it in the address bar, but I can't figure out how to make it a live link that just needs to be clicked on. I see you have edited the paragraph on function in the intro. I'm OK with what you've done. I'd like to edit your edit: it's not revert, it's a reword.
Hi, you earlier marked the new article on blood testing company Theranos as reading like an advert. I've finally got round to trying to amend this, using a bunch more references and trimming down some of the previous content: please see . Could you take a look and see if you think the content now passes WP:NPOV? If not, what else do we need to tweak? Thanks. Fences&Windows 21:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear Graham, let's discuss why you feel video recordings of poetry are of "no encyclopaedic value"? As an encyclopaedia exists to inform about a subject and so a recording of the very subject it self would be encyclopaedic I feel. For example an article about Salman Rushdie, would be fine to have a photo to depict him on wikipedia as long as the photo bears the correct licence. Hence a recording of a poem with an encyclopaedia article is in itself is encyclopaedic. Now in the realms of poetry, especially poems that are centuries old, perhaps certain recordings may not meet the personal tastes and interpretations of all individuals, however poetry and it's readings are open for interpretation. For instance we would not allow the deletion of an article of about a poem itslef simply based on the fact that some may perceive the poem to be of poor quality, or not too their personal taste, that would be their opinion which they are in titled to, but not grounds on judging encyclopaedic merit. And so would you not agree that basing edits/deletes on personal tastes, preconceived stylistic notions, and opinions about the quality of a poetic recording would in fact compromise the very encyclopaedic integrity of such an edit or delete itself? Also your initial reasoning for the delete of the video was stated as "license questionable - no indication that it is free content on You Tube", why did you not initially feel that the video was of "no encyclopaedic value" and only later changed your reasoning when notified of that fact the video did bear the correct licence? thanks for your time. Sharoetry (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Apologies if my account relationships were not clear earlier, this should be now rectified and apparent. Sharoetry (talk · contribs) is the account name used to conduct edits and discussions in poetry and literature articles from hence forth. My master user profile Unicornwhite (talk · contribs) was created with the intention to add video creative commons content to wiki and not get involved in discussions or edits on poetry articles. And so Sharoetry (talk · contribs) will be conducting all discussions and edits concerning literature and poetry from now on to avoid confusions and keep consistency. regards, Sharoetry (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.
{{subst:WP Physiology–invite}}
~~~~{{subst:WP Physiology–welcome}}
~~~~Hoping for your cooperation! DiptanshuTalk 12:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate Babe Ruth at FAC. There is a little over two months to get that promoted, if possible, and Oliver Bosbyshell is sitting in the way, but has three supports. Ian reviewed Bosbyshell so is probably conflicted out of this decision.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi - saw you deleted "remarkably". Understand it's an editorial opinion type word. Probably not the best choice. But without some adjective, I fear it leaves the reader wondering "so what" that they're uniform. How about "unusually"? I can even find a reference for that.
Regards -
IiKkEe (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I raised this point at the FAC page, but no-one seems to care very much! (Maybe it's me, and I need to get out more!) We currently have no bots at all closing the FACs and doing all the housekeeping. The Legobot request seems stagnant (I've no idea how long these usually take) and therefore the bot is yet doing that job (and I don't know if the trial edits have been completed). To me, this is rather irritating and leaves us looking unprofessional as we have a lot of "open" FACs which have ended and several FAs with no "star". I did a manual run last month, but I'm reluctant to unilaterally do this again when no-one seems to be all that bothered but me (and the sadly absent Maralia). So, in short, what do you and Ian Rose want to do until this is all resolved? I don't mind doing a few more manual closes of the FACs myself if that would be helpful but don't want to interfere if you'd rather I didn't. And after this, I'll get back in my box and stop worrying about it! (I've also left this rather rambling post on Ian's talk page, and either of you may tell me to go away...) Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC) I am also bothered by this. Legoktm is pretty good about responding to issues though. I didn't realize that it was one of his bots that did this, or I would have found him sooner. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Your upload of File:Cordoba Water Wheel.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I remember during the second FAC of the now promoted Pather Panchali, you listed it as "urgent" when there were lack of reviewers. Can you please do the same for the current FAC of Gemini (2002 Tamil film)? Bcos it failed its previous FAC due to lack of activity/reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Top marks for knowing the American spelling of "artifacts", and many thanks for a few other US-related fixes. I intend to get an American to check the article out before it goes anywhere. Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean, no consensus? I count 4 clear (bolded) supports and only one object. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
featured content
Thank you for reviewing and promoting articles to featured articles. I hope to live long enough to see the precious one (with a history) on the Main page ;) - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Two years ago, you were the 159th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize,. - As we know by know by now it took only a week for it to happen, also Kafka became the (so far) most successful TFA, miracles seem possible, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Is it okay if I take over bot duties for a month or so? See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Not closed. —Designate (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi there,
I noticed that you have applied both full protection and pending changes level 2 protection to the article. While I understand your protection of the article may help stem some of the undesirable comments that arise in high profile situations, I would appreciate if you would consider removing the pending changes protection. First, as of the most recent RfC on pending changes, there isn't a consensus to use it. Second, pending changes level 2 is redundant to full protection. Thank you for your consideration. Mike V • Talk 05:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Khrushchev's Grave 1973.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tsar Nicholas II Family Remains.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
As this seems ready to be promoted, can I nominate another article?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Could you perhaps take a look at this and see if Katy Perry is ready to become FA? I'm hoping to have her be "Today's Featured Article" for her 30th birthday this upcoming October 25th. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.
We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)
Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation
Graham, I am not familiar with featured article discussions so I am learning as I go. Thanks for your guidance. If I had known your role, I would have contacted you to intervene when @Shakehandsman: tried to discredit my comments. Nigel Pap (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Graham, I would to nom this if possible, cough, 3 days after the FAC for Portrait of a Young Girl (Christus) was closed. Ceoil (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to give a big thanks to you, Graham, for promoting her to FA :'D. This was also my first FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you joined the discussion on the talk page. I was unable to find the source of the claims in the references used in the version you keep restoring. Perhaps you can quote the relevant parts? Nigel Pap (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Why do you keep removing the "disputed" template from Murder of Ross Parker? I dispute the factual accuracy of the claims in the lede. I have explained my reasoning on the talk page. So far we have found a source for one part of the disputed material (number of assailants) but the rest is unsourced. Nigel Pap (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You recently archived my FAC nomination for The Fifth Element. This was my first article nominated for FAC. I am assuming good faith; can you please explain why it wasn't promoted?
Aside from successfully addressing every actionable complaint, I don't understand what more I could have done. Please explain, as whatever I have done wrong, I would like to avoid doing it again with my next FAC nomination. Freikorp (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you archived my featured article review for Thirteen (Megadeth album). This was my first FA attempt, and I have no idea if that means it passed, failed, or what.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
If I may jump in with a suggestion. Why not open a peer review during those two weeks, where reviewers can state what the article needs to be promoted? When the FAC is allowed to proceed, they can support the promotion based on their resolved comments at the PR. That is basically the way Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band became an FA.--Retrohead (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
As I'm sure you remember, you came to my User Talk page, accused me of a "sarcastic tirade", and threatened to block me. (This was in reference to Talk:The_Final_Cut_(album)#Recording:_Gilmour_receives_co-producer.27s_royalties_on_The_Final_Cut, and I'm happy with the way you handled that, by the way. The article is better for it. The essence of what I wanted in the article is there now. Thank you.)
Meanwhile, on my User Talk page, I took the time to explain to you very clearly that my comments were not meant even slightly sarcastic, and while you never responded, I get the feeling you read my response and were okay with it.
Now, since you don't approve of personal attacks, and are willing to block users for engaging in them, I would like you to explain to me why Parrot of Doom is still free to run around saying things such as the following (in the same Article Talk topic):
[Quoting me]: "The "Featured Article" thing: I get it; it's a point of pride." - you don't appear to get anything. You'll excuse me for paying the rest of your post absolutely no attention whatsoever, since it's all similarly full of bullshit.
If you actually read the whole comment he's quoting from, you'll see it's me attempting to soothe the guy, because he has seemed to hate me from the moment he realized I know roughly as much about Pink Floyd as he does. I mean, I have a pretty long history here, and probably 90% of my edits have remained untouched for years now.
This guy has shown he will say anything to justify reverting any edit I make to one of "his" articles. Which directly contravenes Wikipedia policy.
This man has a long history of verbally abusing me and others, as I have attempted to show you and other admins. He has been treating me this way from the first moment I touched an article he had been squatting on. When I've gone to admins looking for help, so far I've gotten none whatsoever. I'm hoping you can be a little more equitable in your application of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Thank you.
--Ben Culture (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I see you closed this as not promoted. I take it too much time had passed without consensus for promotion being reached? I foolishly hadn't checked the page in a while and didn't notice more comments for improvement had been made. I can easily address those... but what should I do moving forward? Is it bad form to nominate the article again? After all, no one opposed promotion. Also, how do I get more people to participate in the discussion? Is it commonplace to go around personally asking for people's input and/or !vote? Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 20:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Not to re-open old wounds, but when you closed my FA review last week, apparently it still shows that it is active, and I am having trouble getting a peer review going on it - it was already closed by a bot once today. If you insist on closing it, I would appreciate if you would correct the issue so I can complete the PR process. Thanks. Here's the article: Thirteen (Megadeth album)--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if you could take a look at Sleeping Dogs (video game) and tell me if you think it meets the FA criteria in your opinion. It would be very much appreciated! URDNEXT (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
After weeks of nothing, I saw that this FA was not promoted. Can you tell me why? Everything in the list of items was addressed, and no one had any remaining concerns. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
It failed the image check. it still fails the image check - it claims copyright based on anonymity for one file while listing the photographer, and File:Sir Ernest Rutherfords laboratory, early 20th century. (9660575343).jpg needs better documentation, as it's unclear who to credit for the CC-licensing - and that's if we're presuming the Science Museum is the author of the image, which seems foolish.
If you aren't sure if something's been resolved, please ask, but while the text has unresolved comments on one of the key criteria, it's kind of nonsensical to promote. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering, about how would you react if someone nominated List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States to FA? Also, how long would it take for it to pass? URDNEXT (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Graham. I previously contacted you regarding why my first FAC nomination was not promoted. Your explanation that there was not a consensus regarding promotion of that article was helpful; thanks. My second FAC nomination, FAC/Murder of Leigh Leigh, is fast working it's way toward the bottom of the current list. Besides an image review, nobody reviewed the article for the first month it was at FAC. It has since received 2 reviews, both supporting the nomination. However my first FAC nomination did not get any comments after it reached as far down the queue as my current nomination is, and I am concerned my current nomination will also not get any further reviews. I have one question for you. Considering that even though there are only two reviewers, 100% of them support the promotion - if the nomination does not receive any further reviews, is it likely to be promoted? I ask as if the answer is 'no' or 'probably not', I intend to start shamelessly grovelling to other editors in order to get more reviews, but i'd rather not resort to this if I don't have to. Thanks again for your time. Freikorp (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I thank you for your comments on the FAC page of Chandralekha, and for helping it gain response. Meanwhile, your comments there seem to have been addressed, so do please remember to give "support" if the article is good. But I still expected more non-Indian reviewers, as they could help making the prose look more international in tone. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Nice to see your new user name. Can I suggest you put a link to your old one on your user page? I'm sure you would have thought of this yourself of course. --John (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey Graham, could you also update Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Featured_articles? Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Graham, sorry about my revert yesterday, it was in anticipation of a revert by one the current POV gang who I wrongly thought you were a part of (I didn't recognise your shiny new name). Thanks for the protection. Cassiantotalk 18:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm curious about you comment regarding the FAC Temperatures Rising. Are you satisfied with the answer you received? The article now has four people offering their support so I'm presuming that it has an excellent chance of becoming a Featured Article. Is it in your hands to reach a consensus? Perhaps I'm a little impatient and overanxious but I really do want to see it reach FA. Jimknut (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what you drink, but this is my appreciation I show you for your comments that helped improve Chandralekha. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC) |
Welcome Mr Beards! (Which is the real name, incidentally?) Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Graham, you (and your talk page stalkers) may be interested in a thread I've started about Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Gough_Whitlam, where possibilities for marking the death (aged 98) of this former prime minister of Australia include re-running a TFA. I'm interested in getting lots of views so I'll be leaving this note on various pages (and apologies, TPS-ers, if your talk page is not one of them!) Thanks, BencherliteTalk 08:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks, Graham! SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the comments on the Beach Thomas FAC and for promoting thereafter. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Dr Beards, For unknown reasons, I have not been able to enter anything in my talk page for several days now. Above all, I wanted to thank you for your kind offer to help me reinsert the missing computer codes in the references, which I so ignorantly deleted. I tried to follow your instruction and ask for help with it on the viroid's Talk page. Trouble is, I couldn't write on that page either and was, therefore, stuck. I then found your talk page and described my problem, but I didn't hear from you, so, apparently you somehow didn't receive my comments there either.
Aside from the reinsertion of the computer codes, I have a problem with reference No. 1, Wolfram's book. I have read portions of it, after which I have no idea what possible connection its content could have with viroids, because it concerns exclusively matters of Particle Physics. While I am not a physicist, further investigation revealed that both the book and Wolfram himself (a self-pronounced genius) are most controversial. One atomic physicist summarized the book as follows: "What is new [in it] is not true and what is true, is not new."
In view of Wikipedia's expressed policy of tolerating demonstrably incorrect statements (such as the ones in Zimmer's New York Times piece), I wonder what can be done to delete the reference to Wolfram's book, which is obviously uncalled for. I don't know who or when this ref. was inserted, evidently without discussion, but whoever did so should be required to justify its inclusion. With kind regards and hope that we can now finalize the viroid page to everybody's satisfaction.96.26.126.134 (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Dr Diener,
I have replaced the reference in question with this one:
As you probably know, this is a highly regarded textbook.
I cannot find a reliable source for the number of atoms, so I have deleted this statement.
I don't understand why you are having difficulties posting your comments. In any case, please remember to login with your username and password otherwise you posts will be anonymous and you will reveal you IP address to others. Graham Beards (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:The Oak and the Calf.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Graham, could you tell me why the Spokane article was archived with 3 supports and 0 remaining opposes? I thought that 3 was the magic number that achieved consensus. Im confused.G755648 (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, it was an exceptionally long FAC. Clearly the article was far from ready for promotion when it was nominated. Despite being listed for over two months, there was no clear consensus for promotion. In a nutshell, there was one provisional support, one on prose only, one on comprehensiveness and prose and one suggestion to withdraw based mainly on sources. (My quick audit of the sources revealed dead links. For example, references 1 has been dead since 2013, 85 and 122 have been dead since November 25, yet the access dates are given as December 7!) I was not satisfied that all the FA criteria had been addressed. You can renominate the article after two weeks from the archiving date, but please make sure that all the issues from the previous FAC have been fully addressed. Graham Beards (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! | ||
|
There's a bot that recognizes the Support text for promoting FACs? I did not know that. Thanks. Is it possible you can figure out why my collapse didn't work? I don't mind it being up, but since I went neutral the discussion is just distracting and the poll for the tree has a rough consensus for exclusion. Let me know what I did wrong and I will re-collapse that unless it is generally frowned upon. (Nice water colors and thanks for sharing them)--Mark Miller (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you tell me what's the status of the nomination? I have 4 supports, all the issues cleared and image spotcheck. Thank you. — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy Holidays | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC) |
Hi Graham, I just passed by your talk page to find out how to nominate an article to be featured because I had out a featured tag on Talk:Dolph Ziggler but you removed it as I am 'not a significant contributor'. To make you sure, I did the same with Talk:John Cena and you can remove it if you feel like I am wrong. Besides, I am impressed with your contributions. As you an experienced editor and an administrator, I would also like to know how to create a featured or at least a good article. Thanks and I apologize for my mistake. Ikhtiar H (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I have re-nominated Trinity (nuclear test) as a Featured Article Candidate. Any comments that you may have will be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.