User talk:Graham Beards/archives/2020

I don't know how to handle your edits since you brutally reverts before reading discussions and quest for reasonable concensus / Admin tool abuse

Yug (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Basicaly, I'am proposing serious solutions and you keep hammering reverts before engaging in discussion. The state of the template before your arrival was inclusive of covid19, you are single handlely removing it, and brutally forcing your concensus preference. Yug (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Hi there is no consensus on the Talk Page to erroneously add coronavirus to a table about influenza. Please stop your disruptive edits. We have enough challenges with covering this pandemic as it is.Graham Beards (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't a template about influenza alone when you arrived, the table-title was clear on that, an the renaming discussion was opened. What more do you need ? You are single handly dragging in back and claiming your preference canonical. You also shoot down compromise solutions. Are you just looking to create a conflict ? Yug (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe you consider you are all knowledgeable and are therefore allowed to revert well build contents before engaging in discussion. You tell me, because this level of brutal jump in, reverts, limited discussion or compromise is quite rare. Yug (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You are abusing your admin tools:

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
Your username or IP address is blocked from doing this. You may still be able to do other things on this site, such as editing certain pages. You can view the full block details at account contributions.
The block was made by ‪Graham Beards‬.
The reason given is Disruptive editing.
Start of block: 2020-03-20T12:17:47
Expiration of block: 2020-04-20T12:17:47
Intended blockee: ‪Yug‬
Block ID #9679113

Yug (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• I full protected the page, but generally agree that it’s not best to block someone you appear to be in a dispute with. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. But we have a responsibility to prevent false information feeding the global concern over this crisis.Graham Beards (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Graham, the fact you are each time acting hastily and changing position isn't helping. I still don't get what is your sincere position on the renaming issue and you blocked your content-dispute opponent and the author of 96% of the template from keeping it updated while the solution I was proposing was honestly a win-win (I can maintain/source the template;template displayed to reader is like your preference;scope discussion goes on) until we get more input and reach a concensus.

TonyBallioni, be clear, I (former admin) consider Graham's action to be abuse of admin tools within a content dispute and you are supporting it, both of you because you fly over this page without getting time to get involved, therefor top-down preventing ground editors from doing their normal work. That's really not helping anyone, and I will have to call for review/arbitrage of this block because it abusively prevent maintenance of the template. Time lost for the community. Yug (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)... May I respectfully opine that the reason you think this is an "abuse of admin tools" is because you are the aggrieved in this situation. Cassianto^Talk 17:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Harp seal pup

Cassianto I've been admin before. Admins are not expected to use admin power to fast-settle a 1 vs 1 vote in their favor. Graham's level of engagement is far below necessary. His WP:TW-based hasty reverts also reverted relevant edits (references distribution to avoid later confusion) because he didn't inspect the edits-changes. I understand overworking and all classic administrator burden, but here, Graham is misusing admin tools, not reviewing what he reverts, I'am still not sure he has read a productive compromise : making the covid row invisible to the larger public; allowing normal content improvements; continue discussion on renaming with him and others (?). These are not proper usage of admin power. It's up to us ex-admin and experienced users to speak out so the admin slow down a bit and don't abuse admin tools with many others. Wikipedia would be a better.

(As for aggrieved party : yes, the template still has 3 content-quality questions I identified to settle but... Graham used his admin tools to settle the renaming vote fast, within minutes, in his favor. Therefor I'am on this user_talk page, I lost 6 brain-hours today, Graham 45mins, you 20min, bits on WM servers kills baby seals. We are wasting everyone's time.) Yug (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

All I did was protect the template, which I think was warranted. I don't think he should have blocked you, but I get his point of view (I also stand by my view that the use of partial blocks never helps a situation and that if a full block isn't warranted, a partial one certainly isn't, but that's a minority view.) If you want to be unblocked, you should make an appeal on your talk page like normal where someone will review it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

TonyBallioni I will do yes, thanks for the hint. I'am lowly aware of those procedures here on wiki-EN. Yug (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You are blocked from editing just one page. You can appeal the block on your Talk Page perhaps by explaining why you want to edit that page. (See Wikipedia:Appealing a block Graham Beards (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Same, will do. Still a waste of time. If you are overworking lay back and just vote or call for more votes. Hasty block is really not helping anyone and it diminish your adminship. Yug (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Graham, Many thanks for your assistance, advice and words of support at FAC recently, all of which were very much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Ditto. You are missed at FAC. Cassianto^Talk 17:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Graham Beards (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

1978 smallpox outbreak in the United Kingdom

I saw your peer review request and was fascinated to see that you had personal knowledge of the tragedy. When I was looking for sources I remember seeing some speculation that Janet Parker was exposed to the virus because she had entered the lab to deliver holiday photos that she had developed for the staff as a sideline. I think it was no more than gossip so couldn’t go in the article but I’m curious if you thought there was anything in it. (Btw, happy to help, if I can, if you want to take it to FAC or GA). DeCausa (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I think she might have gone into the lab thinking the "no entry" sign did not apply to her, or she could have been shown around the lab by a member of staff who liked to "impress". (I suspect the latter). Anyhow, she often offered to sell photographic film on the cheap around holiday times. She offered me some the previous year. I am not alone in thinking "she went to the virus". Thanks for the offer to help. I hope to take it to FA. I have found GA reviews wanting. I'll keep you posted. Best regards. Graham Beards (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting - thanks. Best wishes. DeCausa (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't realised you knew Parker. I visited Birmingham virology dept in 1989 and they were still reeling from the events. I used to work in a group that worked with vaccinia; the labs where the virus was used and stored were always locked and the key was not kept where people could get at it. There again, I do wonder about transmission from things like door/fridge handles and tea-room chairs. I hope you get some useful comments out of peer review, it would be great to see this featured. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources (or ones from over 100 years ago) and those who live in glass houses

I'll let you guess who nominated Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760) at FAC in 2009. Despite the recent clamouring for "no sources older than 100 years", it seems that it's fine to overlook that rule for the Mysore and Coorg article which has a stack of primary sources on which it relies for much of the article. I'm not going to do anything related to FA for an awfully long time, but if I wasn't convinced that I would be accused of pointy behaviour, Mysore and Coorg would be dropped into FAR at the drop of a hat. Badly written, 3 or 4 passages without citations, multiple breaches of the MoS (both galleries and "see map 1" style instructions, both of which are advised against) huge amounts of overlinking, a source list in which many of the works are not used (which does suggest it is not a full review of the available literature) and some rather garbled English. And people think it's acceptable to oppose on their own petty whims over a dislike of one source? I have to agree with Sandy Georgia that having deficient articles like Mysore and Coorg cheapens the whole FA pool as a whole. I wouldn't advise anyone else to try and file an FAR either – the way this place seems to be operating at the moment some jokers can get away with absolutely anything, no matter how toxic the effect. Thanks for all your assistance recently – it's a shame it's all had to come to this, and I doubt I'll be the last person to become frustrated at the intransigence of toxic reviewers. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Staying out of the specifics of the dispute between you and F&f, I'd like to address the FAR components of your post. With an active FAR, running any FA through for a checkup is less likely to be viewed as pointy and more likely to result in valid review. With a moribund FAR, where nominations there are uncommon, then running an article through is more likely to look pointy, particularly since there are so few people participating there, which lessens the chances of FAR saves. FA is meaningless without an active FAR. That's all :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said Graham, some jokers can get away with absolutely anything, even non-compliant FAs. - SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy and Gavin, I am so sorry to see the decline of my beloved WP:FAC. When I was a coordinator (for four years) there were, on average sixty active candidates at any one time in the list; now there only around thirty if that. There hasn't been a successful science candidate for ages – or even a failed one that I can recall. All the editors capable of writing an FA at WP:MED have moved on and there hasn't been a medical FA for five or six years or thereabouts. As a result the medicine-related FAs are not maintained. We can count the number of mathematics FAs on one hand. The amount of FAs that no-longer meet the criteria is embarrassing. I have been looking after some including my own nominations (i.e. Bacteria, Prions, DNA) but there is a limit to my time and enthusiasm. Which is rock-bottom following recent events.

In the light of all this for a FAC about a very minor quirky event in English history to be battered to death by a maverick reviewer because of the use of an old source in the article is an absolute disgrace. Given the dearth of sources, why haven't the reviewers and subsequent commentators suggested a work-around?

The coords are justifying their absence during the FAC by telling each other that they are not "parents", which is most demeaning and patronising to participants. When I was a coordinator I checked every FAC every day to ensure fair play. In Sandy's tenure she gave me the impression she checked every ten minutes!

Without our talented writers there would be no FAs. And yes, before you shout out, without our reviewers there would be no FAs. But when you take on a review your take on responsibilities. To stick to the FA criteria is important. But it's equally important in my view to show respect to the nominators, most of whom spend hours and days and weeks on the articles. Fowler did neither.

This morning I deleted every FAC-related page from my Watchlist. I have better things to do with my time than participate in a process that is terminally ill. Graham Beards (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I could have written almost every word of that myself, Graham :) Yes, I checked FAC regularly (unless I was on an announced travel break), and read through Every Single FAC almost every day. As to "not parents", I frequently described myself as a mother bear where FAs were concerned, so I guess that's parent-ish. But I'm willing to keep giving it one last try. (If for no other reason than the despicable state of medical FAs.) I am trying everything I can think of to re-invigorate both FAC and FAR (to little success, I note :). I suspect I will eventually give up again, as you have, but that moment isn't upon me yet, today. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Valentine's Day thanks

	Heartfelt thanks
	... for your many years of considerable help to make Tourette syndrome the best it can be. Happy Valentine's Day to you and yours! Sandy (Talk) 19:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Lovely. Thank you. Graham Beards (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

My user page

Good afternoon, I don't think my userpage violated any Wikipedia policies. I'm just a big fan of Gerontology. Timothy McGuire (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, it does. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service and your page will be deleted unless it complies with Wikipedia policies. Graham Beards (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath FAC

Hey, just a friendly reminder about the nomination you left a comment at, if you can offer anything more in light of the improvements made since then, before the nomination gets stale. Thank you. isento (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed Coronavirus sections

Hi, you recently removed my additions to the Coronavirus page stating "because the content you added belongs in the articles about the diseases, not the virus" but the virus is what causes the diseases meaning they are interconnected and could you please give me an example of how to reword one of the bullet points on the cdc page into my own words as that is what I tried to do as I was told to do this before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamqtpi (talk • contribs) 20:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Korea update

I have a link for the official KCDC update. https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a20501000000&bid=0015 for my previous edit on the template(the first one). Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC) I would thank you if you restore the edit.Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data source

Hello, I believe https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6 is a reliable source. However, I think that other sources should be considered, too. For example, BNO news has original sources. So, we can cite them as a source. So, I think that the number of cases confirmed, death, and recoveries should be updated every edit we make. I think that at least those numbers shouldn't be pasted from other sites. Please note that I'm not good at citing or coding Wikipedia code, so I can't freely put sources. What are your thoughts about sources? Thank you. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the BNO is not a reliable source; it uses Twitter and Facebook among others. The Johns Hopkins site is reliable [1] and we should use this. Every addition or change to the template should be supported by a source otherwise they will be reverted. I am minded to put increase the protection level to "Admin". I was in process of fixing the totals and orders when you started causing edit conflicts. I think we should be a lot more cautious with sources and the data. This is not a competition. Verifiability is more important.Graham Beards (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright. I understand. So, social media such as Twitter and Facebook can't be reliable even if they are published by the government, officials, etc, right? But I still think that we can't 100% rely on https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6, especially when it comes to the totals since this website could update slowly sometimes. Also, I'm not that good at citing a source. Since I'm not good in citing, I will check out the link you gave. If I make a mistake, please understand me. Also, can I cite Wikipedia pages(such as https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2020_coronavirus_outbreak_in_Iran)? By the way, who or where is running the site arcgis.com? Or how can we check out the sources for each territory? Thank you so much! Sincerely, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, I would put a reliable source from BNO if there is any. Not directly from it.Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Iran recov

Besides of Twitter source by BNO news, Wikipedia page on the outbreak in Iran claims so per http://behdasht.gov.ir/index.jsp?siteid=1&fkeyid=&siteid=1&pageid=55373&newsview=200306

Since my edit keeps getting reverted, can you do it for me? Thanks. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

If you do not know how to do add citations please read WP:CITE before editing articles.Graham Beards (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Wait, was the source http://behdasht.gov.ir/index.jsp?siteid=1&fkeyid=&siteid=1&pageid=55373&newsview=200306 reliable?

Talk:Photon

Was this edit on purpose? It's misplaced and unsigned at least. --mfb (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Hi, yes it was on purpose. I have tidied the page. Thanks for the heads up.Graham Beards (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Poor phrasing

I regret that the "leading lights" comment offended you, as I gather it did. It was not intended as any reflection on you or your competence. I am trying my best to do due diligence on a matter where I have no expertise and deal with an extraordinary request in an appropriate manner. My wording was poor, and I apologize for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, thanks. We have all made a poor wording choice in our time here. I have been equally guilty in the past (and probably will again in the future). Best regards. Graham Beards (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Wehwalt. What say ye, Graham ... should we work up the blurb and put it forward at TFAR? I am also unsure how we can ask for volunteers to switch out their TFA without canvassing. I could approach, for example, Ceoil, and perhaps Montanabw would move Secretariat to the day that the Kentucky Derby would have been held, as it has been cancelled. We could put forward other ideas, but I would like guidance from Wehwalt on how to do this without canvassing. Perhaps, once the article and blurb are ready, we could post a neutral request to the talk page of each article now scheduled ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

As you can see, I am writing a short endemic and pandemic section (with new diagram) for the article to incorporate the SARS-2 pandemic. I should be able to finish this in the next few hours. The old blurb (which I like) will need sexing up and then we progress as you suggest. Graham Beards (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I started the blurb page just to help save you some typing; edit it as you will! Then we can move it to TFAR when you are ready. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You might be interested in this [2]. Graham Beards (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad they spoke with you and I guess you have had some success in the higher level articles, but by adding coronavirus to an ITN banner, we have ended up with TONS of crap like 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States, which does nothing to cover the basics, and has become only a repository for political bashing. I added a few basics there before I gave up. Keep going :) Off to mail some hand sanitizer to my son, who is a milennial scared to death. Back later to help on article, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Graham, I haven't launched Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Introduction to viruses yet at TFAR; want to make sure you're ready. Is that blurb good? I'll doublecheck it carefully tomorrow and launch if all is good ... now it's past my bedtime. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the blurb is fine and I am only tweaking the article now. We might see more comments today. Speak later. Graham Beards (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Need to doublecheck the length of the blurb ... it is possible it could handle one more sentence, per character count, but I haven't checked carefully. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus

I have matched the illustration with the link you provided

Coronavirus virion structure

please update it to corona virus wiki page in morphology

SPQR10 (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Atlantic

Not MEDRS, but interesting. [3]. Is there content there that can be included at Introduction, if MEDRS sources are found? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look. :-) Graham Beards (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:THFlewett.jpg

The file File:THFlewett.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Introduction to viruses TFA

		COVID-19 Barnstar
		For quickly re-working Introduction to viruses for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 27, 2020. Thanks for all you do! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. 18:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the article written "because viruses are important and despite their tiny size, very complex. Because of their complexity, the main article, Virus, can be difficult to understand in parts, especially by those readers with little knowledge of biology" - how true! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Rotavirus seasonal distribution.jpg

The file File:Rotavirus seasonal distribution.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC

States

"There is no consensus on whether drug prices should be included in articles at all."

So no consensus to remove the material.

"Where secondary sources discuss pricing extensively (insulin being a frequently cited example), that information may be worth including in the article; where there is little discussion of pricing in secondary sources, it generally should not be included."

The details on price were discussed by secondary sources extensively. So it fulfills the criteria in the RfC.

"Drugs which fall into the grey area between these extremes should be discussed on a case-by-case basis."

There was discussion on the talk page already and claims were sources to not just primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

arbcase

Graham, unless you put diffs on this evidence, the arbs are likely to ignore it. [4]. You should link to where you found the comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I cannot locate those comments at Talk:Coronavirus ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Graham Beards (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Phage.jpg scheduled for POTD

Hi Graham Beards,

This is to let you know that the featured picture File:Phage.jpg, which you uploaded or nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for May 24, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-05-24. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A bacteriophage is a virus that infects and replicates within bacteria and archaea. Bacteriophages are among the most common and diverse entities in the biosphere, found wherever bacteria are present. Early evidence of their existence came when the English bacteriologist Ernest Hanbury Hankin reported in 1896 that something in the waters of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers in India had a marked antibacterial action against cholera, but was so minute that it could pass through a very fine porcelain filter.

This picture is a transmission electron micrograph at approximately 200,000× magnification, showing numerous bacteriophages attached to the exterior of a bacterium's cell wall.

Photograph credit: Graham Beards

Recently featured:

• Paulette del Baye
• Marriage A-la-Mode: 2. The Tête à Tête
• Self-Portrait

copyright of images in ICTV proposals

The proposal for Duplodnaviria has a useful image that illustrates the relation between its viruses. Is it okay to use images in these proposals on Wikipedia? Velayinosu (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

No ICTV images cannot be used. All the content, including proposals is Copyright © 2019, International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV). Graham Beards (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

SARS article edit thanks

Greetings, User:Graham Beards. Thank you for the acknowledgement on the Koch's postulates clarifying language. It appears you have some background in phage. Excellent. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus icosahedral protein shell

Hello, I noticed your edit at Coronavirus about the icosahedral protein shell. I left a question about that on the article's talk page. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Australasian Antarctic Expedition

Thank you for your part in bringing Australasian Antarctic Expedition to the Main page today, in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit summary

In this edit summary were you referring to this edit, or were you referring to something else? If the former then are you aware of this thread. But if you were referring to something else, would you mind clarifying for me what that was. —Epipelagic (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. First, I love the work you are doing on the article. I hadn't seen that thread and I must confess that I did not check the article's history thoroughly enough and I missed the attribution. My apologies. If you think I can help with the article, I would be pleased to contribute. Viruses are getting a bad press at the moment, for obvious reasons, and the 99.9% of them, which are beneficial, need more exposure.Graham Beards (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Well yes, it would be great if you would cast the occasional beady eye over this stuff. I know nothing about viruses, or biology for that matter. My grounding is mathematical physics and writing about marine life is an old age hobby. The only reason I have the effrontery to attempt these marine overviews is because no one else seems to be attempting them. —Epipelagic (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

SARS vs COVID-19

Hi Graham, you reverted the change from more likely to be anxiety than SARS to more likely to be anxiety than COVID-19 in this edit, but the source cited does not mention SARS (the disease), it only talks about COVID-19 (the disease) and SARS-CoV-2 (the virus). You can check at The Early Natural History of SARS-CoV-2 Infection with a search on "shortness of breath". I won't edit war with you, but I do think that Zellow000 was right. Perhaps you might consider a self-revert? --RexxS (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not quite sure why I did that. (Busy day). Graham Beards (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Dimple Kapadia

It's been predictably achieved, but I just wanted to thank you for your kindness and guidance. I appreciate it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

That's sad. You could have got there. Please don't be put off. Graham Beards (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Not at all, I'm happy with the outcome, I mean the article itself. When I first came across the article, that's how it looked. So to see its current state has been worth the effort. And I've started a peer review now, inviting everyone to take part, so we might get up there eventually. :) Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Defective interfering particles

Hello. I edited the DIPs classification due to the ICTV report (it refers to them as "Defective interfering (DI) RNA") and some references in the Defective interfering particle article (they refer to them as "Defective interfering RNAs" and "Defective interfering DNAs"). But to be honest, I had doubts myself if it was a good choice. :) Thus, thank you very much for your revert, perhaps it’s truly better now. Have a nice day! --Jojnee (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: your revert

Hi, purpose of this edit was to correct the pmid number in the reference name, as it didn't match the correct one in the citation. I'm reviewing articles for conflicts between PMID in ref name and actual citation - there are some cases where the citation is wrong, this is one of the easier ones where a it's a stray digit in the ref name. Is there a reason you needed to revert this one? Thanks Rjwilmsi 19:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The reference name does not have to match anything. I could have called it "Fred Bloggs". It seems to me to be just another one of those pointless AWB edits that turn up on my watchlist and waste my time. Why do you think it has to match? Graham Beards (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed the reference name can be made from any convention, though I think it's confusing to use the PMID format but not the same PMID in the citation. As I said, I expect that as part of this set of articles I'm investigating there will be corrections to the citations themselves, I'm dealing with the easier ones first. I'm sorry if you see this as a waste of your time, though in this instance you could also have taken no action. Thanks Rjwilmsi 19:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, but I fail to see how it can be confusing. I took action to alert you to your wasting my time, which has worked. I appreciate all corrections to citations, but needless edits also appear on watchlists and conscientious editors will check them. There could hundreds of editors, or more, checking these pointless edits, which is a waste of resources. I will continue to revert any further ones. Best regards. Graham Beards (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

G4 EA H1N1

Thanks for the help, Graham (and also at complete blood count). Are you still as busy as you were earlier in the pandemic? I am done ripping up G4 EA H1N1 and telling people off for irresponsible medical editing, so would you mind having one last look there ? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Busier. We have substantially increased testing to reduce transmission as much as we can even though there are much fewer infections than a couple of months ago. I'll take another look at the article. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. Best.Graham Beards (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey there

Hi there, Graham! Good to see you!

I'm here for the same reason: the Dimple Kapadia article, if you remember. Despite not having been given any feedback at PR, I think the article has greatly improved. Essentially, I think, it was quite in good shape already by the end of the FAC process, but the nomination was just a mess thanks to Fowler's insistence to appear all of over the place, as you know, though I do admit the article was indeed unstable with many edits done through the course of the process, so it's okay. Most of my work since then has been trying to strengthen the sourcing, adding the best available for each claim (mostly books), and polish some of the prose.

But nothing has changed as far as Fowler (who I had actually invited to offer a review on the PR when the FAC was archived, despite everything, but he wouldn't show up) is concerned, he came out of nowhere to the discussion I started on the talk page last week, and did nothing but add another predictably dismissive message, which includes the same empty and unconstructive comments based on nothing but violations of WP:OR, WP:AGF, and if you look at the section, it really borders on the provocative. That being said, I still did express my willingness to cooperate with him in case he was interested to offer a real review, but he was unwilling to do so. And to think that everything started because he was so fervently opposed to just one word - Hinduism - mentioned on the article and properly sourced (a pattern which seems to be repeated by him on other pages, just looking at one of his recent conversations - the very last message on his talk page accuses him of the same). I tried to take the core issue to DRN a few days ago but it didn't work out courtesy Fowler, who refused to take part. So as I've been told by others, eventually he is just going to wait for the FAC to offer his automatic oppose, and mess up the entire thing in case others support it. Can you think of a way to guide me here or offer your input as an editor, a past co-ord, and an admin? Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

FAR of Earth

I have nominated Earth for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

How to withdraw FAC nominations

I'm thinking about withdrawing The Who by Numbers Tour FAC nomination. How is that done? Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 18:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you can just put "{{@FAC}} I withdraw this nomination" (or whatever wording you want) and sign it at the bottom of the FAC page and one of the coordinators will close it for you. Best regards, Graham Beards (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 19:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Nilsen

I respect your observations, and despite the insults I received a few days ago from another user, I actually saw merit in her edits. I just do not see any offensiveness in an official term used to describe sexuality. So long as the term is not overused in the article, I can support the usage of the term. All the best, --Kieronoldham (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

And I can't see why we cannot use a non-offensive synonym. Graham Beards (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Electrical telegraphy in the United Kingdom

I'm going to take to heart your comment at the failed FAC that this article is too long. I'm thinking of splitting it up and submitting a very much shortened version to FAC. But it would be good if the prose was cleaned up before starting on that process. Would you be willing to do a copyedit? SpinningSpark 21:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm too busy IRL working on the covid outbreak to commit any time. (BTW, I retract my comment about the zinc sulphate usage in a Daniell cell; I worked it out).Graham Beards (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

No surprise there

Information added about one company promoting a vaccine: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Graham Beards/archives. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. BunbunYU (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverting edits on Rotavirus

Hi, I read the article on Rotavirus on wikipedia. It is written well but I observed it lacked more information about the specific types. I added two types A and B and planning to explain more about all the main types of the virus. However, you have reverted my changes back and as per your instruction I am reaching out to you to explain whatever necessary to make these changes. Please let me know if there are any additional policies that I need to address before making these changes to the Rotavirus article.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidhujupinder (talk • contribs) 20:54, December 9, 2020 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) Sidhujupinder you should sign your entries on user talk pages (and article talk pages) by adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Separately (because Graham could be sleeping or working now), those edits would be discussed at Talk:Rotavirus. You may have noticed this message when you edited. Graham may have more to add on article talk, but I can see that some of the text you added was in the wrong section, some was sourced to dated sources (see WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE), none of the citations respected WP:CITEVAR, and some of the language was not within the WP:MTAU guideline. And your edit altered the article organization set up according to Wikipedia's medical manual of style. As one example, Rotavirus was first discovered in China in 1983 (if worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic overview), would belong in the History section rather than where you placed it. Learning Wikipedia's medical manual of style and sourcing requirements for medical content can be challenging even for experienced researchers, writers, and practitioners, so I hope this starter information helps! And welcome to Wikipedia, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, you were right, I was working. There were also spelling and grammatical errors, and group B rotavirus was already described in the article. I have commented on the article's Talk Page. Graham Beards (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, RNA vaccine

Most appreciated ... if we saw more of that, how different might things be in here. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of University of Birmingham academics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Cohen. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings of the season

I Am Half-Sick of Shadows, Said the Lady of Shalott		Happy holidays
		Dear Graham, For you and all your loved ones, "Let there be mercy". Wishing you health, peace and happiness this holiday season and in the coming year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Natalis soli invicto!

		Natalis soli invicto!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)