User talk:Graham Beards/Archive1

License tagging for Image:63206Image1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:63206Image1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Orton image

Hey - looks like the bots already got to you. Great to have an image of Orton on the article, but need to know its copyright status, otherwise it'll get booted. That's why the Oldman pic was there, I think. If you're able to provide a copyright-free image, though, that'd be great. DionysosProteus 00:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had one! Perhaps the Orton Estate would like to donate.

Perhaps that's not such a bad idea. It can't hurt to ask, certainly.

BTW, the Mayakovsky grave pic looks great.

DionysosProteus 12:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Human Calicivirus.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Human Calicivirus.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Lenin 1887.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lenin 1887.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lenin 1887.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lenin 1887.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi there, thanks for your improvements to the Virus article. If you need any help or advice with anything please just drop me a note on my talk page. All the best Tim Vickers 15:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, have a look at this image for an example of a fair-use image rationale (Link). Tim Vickers 15:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look, this tool {Link) lets you paste in a PubMed ID number and returns a formatted reference. Saves a lot of time. Tim Vickers 18:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owner of Phage TEM

Dear GrahamColm,

My name is Christine and I work for an educational textbook and I came across an amazing TEM of bacteriophages on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phage.jpg

I was wondering if you were the owner of this image, if so, I would like to use this image in an educational textbook, and was wondering if you had a higher-res copy for print use. Please contact me at athos2001 @ gmail(dot) com (please remove spaces and add a 'dot', trying to avoid spam). I look forward to hearing from you. All the best,

Christine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athos2001 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Christine,

I have sent you and e-mail GrahamColm 20:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Castro Khrushchev UN 1960.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Castro Khrushchev UN 1960.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the great "prostatitis and viruses" contribution on the prostatitis page. ReasonableLogicalMan 16:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology

Graham, I have started a page Inflammatory_diseases_of_unknown_etiology. Would you consider contributing? Thank you. ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 18:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have the time. I am working hard on my Wiki virology and Russian projects.

GrahamColm

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Khrushchev and Lysenko.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Khrushchev and Lysenko.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Viral diseases

Hello, I noticed that you have added viral gastroenteritis as a separate subhead on this template, with a list of viruses that cause the disease. Almost all of the other entries are names of diseases, not names of the viruses that cause the disease. I'm wondering if we need to come to a consensus whether this template lists diseases, viruses, or a mix. I'll paraphrase this note on Template talk:Viral diseases, so maybe you could answer there. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 18:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more convoluted than at first I had thought. The hepatitis is not a problem, but herpes and HIV are, as well as the others you mentioned. I think leave well enough alone for now -- lets see if anyone responds to my note on the template talk page. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC) (Carefully signed, so I don't get whacked by that bot!!! Nice of it to teach you how to type.)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 20:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mr. Robot, I forgot. --GrahamColm 20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Move

Done, glad to help. :) Tim Vickers 17:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Virus

Hi GrahamColm,

Thanks so much for the kind words. It's always a pleasure to know that I've been able to improve an article. If you need help with any other articles, please don't hesitate to ask. Have a good day!

Mike2vil 23:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Hep B virus

Hi again GrahamColm,

Got your message on the Hep B article. I have already done a little bit of work on it, but will continue to do so. I cleaned the external link section, b/c the list seemed excessive; some links would not greatly enhance readers' understanding of Hep B.

Mike2vil 22:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Figures

Great figures, adding good illustrations is one of the best things you can do for an article. Some tips for improving them further can be found at Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload. I tweaked two of the HBV figures to follow these suggestions a bit more closely - removing whitespace, making the subjects larger and converting a jpeg to a PNG. Hope I didn't introduce any inaccuracies, but if I did I didn't overwrite the originals so you can go back to those if needed. Tim Vickers 18:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The software automatically reduces the files to thumbnails when we put links to them in articles, so the size of the original file isn't important to page load times. Tim Vickers 23:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hepatitis B virus GA nomination

Hi there. I noticed you added Hepatitis B virus as a nominee on WP:GAN, but you removed it shortly after. Did you change your mind? Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotavirus

Hi, Graham, just a couple of notes on Rotavirus. You should always archive old talk page entries rather than delete them; I set up the first archive for you. Also, GA is a process an article has to submit to, so an article can't be assigned GA until it's been through WP:GAN. I had to back off the assessment to B-class; not saying it's not worthy of higher, but that's as high as it can be assessed until/unless it goes through WP:GAN. I suggest you submit the article to GA after the peer review. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hea, Graham, no problem; it's kind of fun watching someone do all the same things I did when I was new to Wiki :-) Hey, maybe you can operate on your sigfile to make it live, so people could easily find their way to your page (notice how my sig takes you to my userpage and my talk page). Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, as you are in the midst of restructuring Rotavirus, I won't interfere but I wanted to suggest merging the Treatment section into the Diagnosis section, and call it "Diagnosis and treatment". I'll rewrite the treatment paragraph once I have done some more work on Gastroenteritis. --Una Smith 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Khrushchev and Lysenko.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Khrushchev and Lysenko.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got in trouble again, sorry. I added rationale today.--GrahamColm 18:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hepatitis B

Walaikum Assalam,

I have reviewed the article for GA status, and left behind comments on the talk page. The reason I haven't passed it, is because I'm not yet confident in my ability to make the correct decision (since I'm relatively new to this process).Bless sins (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating the article, Hepatitis B virus, for a GA review. Unfortunately, the article has now been put on hold for 7 days until improvements suggested on the talk page have been completed. Thank you. Rudget _talk 15:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Khrushchev and Tse-Tung Mao.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Khrushchev and Tse-Tung Mao 1957.jpg. The copy called Image:Khrushchev and Tse-Tung Mao 1957.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hepatitis B virus

The article Hepatitis B virus you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Hepatitis B virus for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Rudget _talk 16:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sholokov and Khrushchev 1959.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sholokov and Khrushchev 1959.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In bloody trouble again. That robot doesn't like me. I think it was the resolution it didn't like so I have reduced it.GrahamColm ^Talk 20:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purging a page

Wikipedia:Purge. I did this and it replaced the image. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to viruses?

Hi Graham, Thanks for the userpage additions/thanks. I was wondering if you would consider writing an Introduction to viruses, written from a high-school level/layperson's POV as it would be worthwhile for encyclopedic reasons for wikipedia. any ideas?--Read-write-services (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, This is ironic. When I was editing Virus, I thought I was working on an Introduction to viruses, for high-school level/laypeople. That's probably one of the many reasons it failed WP:GA. One of my criticisms of Virus is that it is too over-simplified. I appreciate that the scientific terminology makes some of the article hard-work, but often it can't be avoided. I would find your request very difficult for this very reason. I feel that should I attempt to write it, it would be in a very patronising way and I don't want that. Please forgive me but viruses are not as simple as many people think. My best wishes GrahamColm ^Talk 16:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham,

I have been thinking about maybe even doing this myself-I disagree that most people think viruses are simple, from my limited knowledge, they are unbelivably complex! i think that the virus life cycle articles are reasonable and there is a fairly good explanation of HOW viruses replicate, but little of the WHY or how does a chemical DNA or RNA or what mRNA or tRNA work? It is almost (according to my reference book) like the article such as virus could start of with a section on DNA then RNA then for what reason RNA exists, in a 'common' cell. Then perhaps how a virus 'takes control' of this process-am I making sense? Another point, I don't think that ANYTHING you have written was too simplified or patronising. So i wouldn't worry about that.Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Read-write-services (talk • contribs) 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard,

the article would have to start off with a beginners guide to cell biology. How genetic information is stored in DNA, passed onto RNA which takes the information (message), to the ribosomes, (protein factories), which make the enzymes that make the DNA. (Full circle). Then explain how viruses hitch a ride by introducing their own DNA into the cell, or, the clever bit, not bothering with DNA at all and jumping on the carousel at the RNA stage. (In can be argued that some RNA viruses only need the ribosome and the free amino acids, nucleosides and sugars in the cell). Then explain how viruses recognise the cells that they can do this in, (by the receptors on the cell membrane, every virus has its own receptor) which in turn is related to the immune system. Then move on to how viruses evolve. It would be important to stress that one virus goes in, but thousands come out. Something which is not made clear in many life-cycle diagrams and a point I like to make in my own, as you can see. The article could close by pointing out that the really clever (a very unscientific word to use in this context) viruses replicate without killing the host cell. (Hepatitis B virus does in the carrier. Then finish with a paragraph on vaccines and antiviral drugs. The article would need to be well illustrated to avoid too many technical terms.--GrahamColm ^Talk 22:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right so it's decided then...you will write it using the format suggested above, and I will edit it-simple! well done for volunteering!..just joking. Cheers!--Read-write-services (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, joking aside, lets do it. There is a precedent on Wiki see Introduction to general relativity and General relativity. We can use Virus as a basis and use the outline I suggested above. Your job could be to "translate" into layspeach any techno babbble that I cannot. What do you think? Graham. --GrahamColm ^Talk 21:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to do that!Cheers.--Read-write-services (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. There are precedents in other articles on "Intro to X" but often those articles come about because the editors who wrote the article X are resistant to a massive re-write. Please try rewriting Virus. Once Rotavirus is done, you may see Virus with fresh eyes. --Una Smith(talk) 21:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Let's give Richard a chance, he wants to contribute. What harm can be done? I am still working on Virus, which is a GA and does not require a massive re-write, but, yes, alas, more work. Everything can be undone. I don't see the problem, just the possibilities.--GrahamColm ^Talk 21:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the request for peer review for Introduction to virus? --Una Smith (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Which one do you want to keep as the new title of the article? Tim Vickers 19:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tim, Astrovirus, please; because we have Rotavirus, Herpes virus, Hepatitis C virus, Hepatitis B virus and, of course Virus. Our readers are not familiar with viridae. Best wishes, Graham. --GrahamColm ^Talk 19:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tim Vickers 04:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astrovirus

Hello again. I updated the taxobox for Astrovirus. The "species" parameter refers to species of virus, not the host. The taxobox is not very well designed for virus taxonomy, but I tried to include genera and species. Take a look, and change if you wish. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 05:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sholokov and Khrushchev 1959.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sholokov and Khrushchev 1959.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damned Robot!--GrahamColm ^Talk 21:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Komsomol.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Komsomol.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Alex Spade (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, please delete it.--GrahamColm ^Talk 17:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herpes zoster

According to WP:MEDMOS, it appears that the History section should be at the end of the article. I'm not sure why, and I'm not even sure I agree, but most medical articles with FA status (and by no means have I done an exhaustive search) follow that pattern. I'd think we continue that pattern, because there are some fairly rigid FAC reviewers who will want it to follow MEDMOS. What do you think? BTW, thanks for your help. Great cleanup of the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah, Graham;[1] you moved out of the newbie category lickity split, but what about all my mentoring and sample edits on MOS cleanup? :-) MEDMOS is flexible on section arrangement, although History at the end is preferable based on many discussions and long-standing consensus at WP:MED (probably others there can fill you in better on the whys and wherefores and when an exception makes sense). I'm sure you can both can do the MOS cleanup, because I've worked with both of you before with sample edits. I used to do it mostly myself, but time no longer permits. I put in a request to Brighterorange to fix the dashes, but he's been busy lately, so I'm not sure he'll come through. And, using the Diberri tool in the userbox on my userpage to generate cite templates on PMIDs avoid the incorrect endashes on page ranges. Keep up the good work, Graham ... and stop considering yourself a known newbie; you've already shown your contributions to be valuable, and that you're a nice person besides, and that's what matters most to make Wiki worthwhile :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected that there must be a reason for the history to be at the end, but I couldn't figure it out. I didn't think it really mattered one way or the other. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read all the discussions once, but, um, I forgot what they said :-) I do remember there was a good reason for it, and it has a lot of consensus. Why don't I see more of both of you at the Medicine Project? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying!!!! :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lung cancer passed FAC with no medical review and over my extreme frustration with the Medicine Project for not weighing in, and you can read the polio fac to see who did that work and review. We need more physicians reviewing these articles, as well as dealing with the quackery and poor citation in other areas. By the way, I added Herpes zoster to Template:MCOTWannounce‎. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latency/Dormancy

Could you clear up the confusion at Dormancy and Clinical latency wrt to Virus latency. My understanding is that "viral dormancy" is equivalent to "virus latency" and the text in "Dormancy" should say so. I also believe that "Clinical latency" is the time in which the virus is developing or living within the body without producing clinical symptoms. The current text for "Clinical latency" implies it is different to dormancy when my impression is that dormancy is merely one form of clinical latency. I'm no expert at all, so would appreciate if you could sort this mess out, preferably with some good sources. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 17:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, clinical latency refers to subclinical infections. Dormancy and latency, with regard to viruses, are pretty much the same. I have edited dormancy to this effect.--GrahamColm ^Talk 20:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your commitment and efforts on Herpes zoster. Colin°^Talk 09:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, it has been a pleasure to work with you on this. Your work, particularly that long slog on Saturday 15th, is noted and very much appreciated. I know that behind even the smallest edit, there can be considerable off-wiki effort finding sources, reading papers, trying different phrasings. Wiki greatly benefits from having a subject expert like you on board.

One thing remains. Throughout the last week, your "vote" at FAC has remained "Strong support". If your opinion has changed, I feel it would be best if you update this. If not, have I been a troublesome thorn, overcritical and demanding? If my editing/collaboration technique could stand some improvement, please be honest with me. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 09:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, thank you for this. I think it's my technique that needs improving not yours:-) I look forward to working with you again.--GrahamColm ^Talk 16:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virus article

Somebody commented today on how impressed they were by this article. Good work! Tim Vickers (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herpes zoster once more

I kind of agree with your edit summary here. The FAC process is supposed to improve an article, but it's going backwards instead. It was much clearer before, but Una Smith seems to be misunderstanding something fundamental, because their edits confuse me. I see that Una has a lot of experience with these articles, so I'm guessing something isn't clear to the reader. Am I missing something? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to be diplomatic? Overall, the article is not improving. The prose is becoming poor compared to when I first read the article, and I might be partly guilty of this. Of course there have been some improvements and I agree with Colin on many issues, but now we seem to be arguing about established viral terminology and facts (that my mother knew). I thought citations were only required for contentious statements, (although I agree that medical articles might require more). I think the FAC will not succeed because consensus will not be reached in time. The baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. Now we seem to be trying to fix stub articles. What's going on? We are running out of time. Certainly, Una gets confused as she did here with Herpes zoster and the virus VZV and similar thing happened with my rotavirus article with regard to the viral envelope, (which rota does not have), but the rotavirus article is better thanks to her input. The difference is that it has not been nominated for FAC and we had time to reach consensus. I wish more use was made of the discussion page before edits were made rather than after. Herpes zoster is still a good article and one you can be proud of. My best wishes to you.--GrahamColm^Talk 22:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FAC does not have a time limit; patience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the areas I've managed to review (at the version of the article I reviewed), I'd have said if I thought something was ambiguous. I didn't think the disease/virus, chickenpox->shingles, reactivation/infectious stuff was in any way unclear (and I'm coming to this cold). I'm also puzzled by some of Una's comments and edits. I've asked User:Eubulides to help with the epidemiology. He's done some excellent work on the autism articles and is fussy (in a good way) when it comes to ensuring the text agrees with the best sources when it comes to stats. If you want, you could second my request over at his talk page. I don't want to derail the FAC but felt I had to say that, in its current condition, I don't think it should be promoted. I think that as long as progress appears to be being made (both to the article, and on the FAC page) then Sandy's comments will hold. If you lose heart and walk away, or arguments get heated, then it is lost.

I've struggled today and yesterday to find the time on WP. I'm reluctant to make big edits since my own prose isn't FAC-quality (it is easier to spot bad prose than to write good prose). Polio had about a week of intense review, polishing and copyediting prior to FAC, with contributions from many editors. You're going through that pain on FAC. Don't be afraid to ask for help. Colin°^Talk 22:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Sandy and Colin. I think the next hurdle is the problem with the way the incidence and prevalence data is presented and yes we need an epidemiologist. How come, just when I decide to give up you guys always come to save me? (Rhetorical) :-)--GrahamColm ^Talk 22:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, I really wanted to spend some time on HZ today but have only managed a few minutes here and there. It looks like you've been very buzy, several editors have helped out, and Eubulides may get a chance to work his statistical magic in the next day or two. I'd like to finish my detailed review of HZ and work out what state it is in now. Perhaps even tweak it a bit myself.

As for Rotavirus and Hepatitis B virus, I'll look at them if you like. Are you hoping to take them to FA? Are you looking for a detailed review or do you want me to try to copyedit it, or a combination? Regardless, any work is likely to be done in stages over a protracted period. I simply don't have the time to sit down for several hours on WP. You should know I have no medical training, nor am I able to write brilliant prose. Sometimes I'll suggest things that turn out to be duff ideas. Colin°^Talk 23:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, I just read the talk page; do you still feel like a newbie? <grin> Now you know the best way to approach FAC with a medical article is to get Colin, Eubulides, Fvasconcellos, TimVickers, Tony1 and JFW on board well in advance :-) Several of us worked up autism before Eubulides brought it to FAC, and several of us looked at polio, and those both went fairly well. And thanks to lots of advance work from the good Wikifriends, my Tourette syndrome FAC nom was just plain fun. It looks like this has been quite a rough go, but I hope you'll keep at it; it will be an excellent learning curve for you to bring your own work to FAC :-) We all owe Colin a debt; I hope we can all eventually collaborate on his epilepsy efforts, or tuberous sclerosis. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I was very naive indeed at first. If I had known then just how high the standards are here I probably would have not made the leap. I'm glad I did. I have published over 40 odd papers in peer reviewed journals and none of them got anywhere near the grilling that Virus got. I had two choices after that, to walk away, or to work on a smaller article, Rotavirus, and humbly ask one of my strongest opponents their opinion. I chose the latter. This past week it has been an amazing experience for me to watch everyone come to help and it's great to feel part of a team. There are some really smart people here and it's an honour to work with you.--GrahamColm ^Talk 11:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Hepatitis G; Coral Browne; Bitot's spots; Hepatitis D; Gbv-c; Pterygium; Viral load; Virus Bulletin; Bromoviridae; Ivan Silayev; Xenopus; Potyviridae; Rehydration; Swine flu; Hutchinson's teeth; Prick Up Your Ears; Satellite (biology); Lettuce big-vein disease; Billiard Congress of America

Cleanup: Indian caste system; Number of the Beast; Cryptovirus
Merge: Colon (anatomy); Virus signature; Logarithmic integral function
Add Sources: Cleevix (computer virus); Mike Virus; Georgy Malenkov
Wikify: Tombusviridae; Filoviridae; Metapneumovirus
Expand: Arms race; Reverse discrimination; Echinoderm

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russia FAC

Hello, you didn't specify what your exact concern was with the following in the Russia FAC - It is also applied as a means of coding and storage of universal knowledge—60–70% of all world information is published in English and Russian languages. Russian also is a necessary accessory of world communications systems (broadcasts, air- and space communication, etc). Is it the grammar? I changed "Russian also is" to "Russian is also" in the second sentence so it reads better.--Miyokan (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clumsy and difficult to understand. I would delete it. I offer: Russian is an important world language and 60 to 70% of all literature is in English or Russian. --GrahamColm ^Talk 10:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rubella

I've asked User:DO11.10 about the Rubella/Congenital rubella syndrome merger. Ultimately, you're the best person to make the decision as you've got the material and will know how best to use it. Colin°^Talk 18:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Colin. I'm still not sure so all views are of course very welcome. In the mean time, I plan to work on both articles. Best wishes, Graham. --GrahamColm ^Talk 18:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes

Dear Colin, I will be working at the hospital over the New Year's celebrations, so may I wish you now all the very best for 2008 and thank you for all your kindness and support. Graham. --GrahamColm ^Talk 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham. The same to you. What a shame about your work. I haven't forgotten about Rotavirus. I've a bad cold at the moment so my head's not quite up to it. May require some medicine to see in the New Year. Colin°^Talk 23:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs).
Please feel free to archive it whenever you like.

Rotavirus

Yes, I've started reviewing the text and have been tidying a few little things here and there. I got interrupted for a while but will continue tomorrow and try to keep working through it as I get time. I see you're working on Norovirus‎, which is much in the news. May your real-life be free of both! Colin°^Talk 00:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the lead. I wouldn't expect the ratio of reviewed text to review text to be the same for other sections! I'll try to do a bit more tonight. Colin°^Talk 17:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colin, thanks, you're a pal. Fortunately I am free of norovirus, unfortunately my hospital isn't! There are two closed wards at the moment - the managers are demanding from me rapid, (ie. instant) laboratory tests for infection which don't exist. They ought to spend more time reading Wikipedia ;-) GrahamColm ^Talk 18:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham,

I've been ignoring Rotavirus but see you've been busy and so I'll have another look. I noticed you'd created Ruth Bishop. I've created a few short bio articles myself, mostly related to tuberous sclerosis. Acknowledging someone's place in history is kind of like saying "thank you", I think. Even though my efforts are little more than "stub" or "start" quality, I've got more satisfaction from them than the medical fact stuff. Along the way, I've learned about some amazing people, though I'm always struck by how rude doctors were 100 year ago (I'm sure they're just as rude now, but not in print perhaps). I saw your addition to your userpage. For someone who spends his time reading and writing about diarrhoeal diseases, you've got a cheek! Colin°^Talk 21:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colin,

As always, great to hear from you. I met Ruth Bishop a couple of times in the 1980s, but I don't know enough about her to "de-stub" her article; I was hoping the Australians would build it up. My BIG worry about our Rotavirus article is the Epidemiology section - mainly the bloody numbers. Right now I have managed to get myself embroiled (?spelling) in a controversy regarding a small section of Introduction to evolution. WRT Wikipedia virus articles, I wish we had some rules, (I can't believe I just said that), I would like to see all the esoteric, virological stuff (albeit important to students), at the bottom of these articles. With regard to rudeness, I knew Tom Flewett very well; I worked with him for ten years. Was he excentric or just rude? I offer the former POV. WRT my cheek; it might be shit to you but it has been bread and butter to me. :-) Very best wishes, --GrahamColm ^Talk 22:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

te he he ... that wasn't a pleasant thought (bread and butter :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spike Milligan? Colin°^Talk 23:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He nicked it from me! GrahamColm ^Talk 23:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Some other (non-rude) person I met.[reply]

I think I've finished reviewing Rotavirus. Thanks for you patience and hope you felt it worthwhile. You mentioned you were worried about the epidemiology. You could try asking Eubulides to review that. Colin°^Talk 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Thank you, Graham. Your flowers meant a lot, helped a lot, and I'm deeply grateful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sandy, after all the help that you have freely and generously given to me, I wish I could have supported you more.Graham GrahamColm ^Talk 22:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You did; your flowers bring me good cheer many times a day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rollback

I have granted your request for rollback. Please make sure you are familiar with how rollback works. In general, the tool is only for reverting obvious vandalism - any edit, no matter how awful or biased, that could possibly have been made in good faith should not be reverted in this manner. Never use rollback on the edits of regular contributors and most of all, use common sense. Remember rollback privileges can be revoked by any administrator. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism.--Doc^g 19:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro evo

I understand. If morgan preceeded Watson and co,please edit to correct per your suggestion. Also the shorter, thing as well. We are easy like that! No need for concensus to correct factual errors. I think vaguing away Watson and Crick in honor of Roslind is also reasonable. Way too much name dropping. If you have an accurate phrase to accomplish that ...have at it! I don't think we are on opposite sides of the fence here. Right? Thanks --Random Replicator (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very right. Best wishes --GrahamColm ^Talk 19:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take another gander --- I gaveit a shot!--Random Replicator (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 1953 seems too confined. I assume that is when it was published. Would In the 1950's be acceptably accurate? Feel free to jump right in there and clean up after me! --Random Replicator (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at my edit. If you don't like it feel free to revert. I think you (reluctantly) have to mention Watson and Crick. I have given the reference to the Nature paper.--GrahamColm ^Talk 19:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it ... can't see any criticism coming as to how it increases complexity --- in fact the other way. Very Good Sir! Until we meet again.--Random Replicator (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added my support for the article at the FAC. Good luck to you!--GrahamColm ^Talk 19:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better? Evolution can be directly observed in artificial selection, the selective breeding for certain traits of domestic animals and plants. The diverse breeds of cats, dogs, horses, and agricultural plants serve as examples of evolution.--Random Replicator (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! There wasn't really a problem, but I could see someone objecting. :-) GrahamColm ^Talk 18:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Peer review/Concussion

Hi GrahamColm, I wondered if I could ask a favor. SandyGeorgia recommended that I ask you for a review of concussion. I'd like to get it up to FA eventually. I'd love it if you could comment at the review. There have been several comments on the writing, but no one has really thoroughly evaluated the accuracy. Any help you could offer would be very much appreciated. Thanks, delldot talk 09:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article popularity

Graham wrote "more people will read my contributions here than all those who have read my paper-published work." Have a play with http://stats.grok.se/. During January, an average of 5,000 people read virus every day. Even the relatively unknown rotavirus gets 640 hits a day. However, way in the lead, on the 4th January, a staggering 12,000 people read norovirus. Colin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs) 22:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable! I thought 20 or 30 a month. I'm lost for words. Cheers Colin.--GrahamColm^Talk 23:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember that's just page hits. They didn't all read to the end, and most probably didn't go past the lead (which is why it is so important). But then, that's probably true of journal abstracts too! Colin°^Talk 00:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rotavirus and rotaviral enteritis

I've split the rotavirus article in two to see what happens. You can look at the results:

I've used the ICD10 name "rotaviral enteritis" rather than "rotavirus enteritis" since the latter is harder to say and just causes confusion in the text when also saying "rotavirus". Both are substantial articles in the own right. The new "rotavirus" article is currently less well organised but has room to expand, taking poliovirus as an example of information to cover. The "rotaviral enteritis" is essentially the same as the current rotavirus article, without the Microbiology bit, a little trimming of the history, some wording changes, and a new Cause section that summarises the virus article. The question is whether this improves the article or makes it weaker. I'm certainly not going to demand a change, and am quite happy if you reject it. One point, which you hinted at earlier, is that a lot of the literature discusses the disease and virus under one heading: rotavirus. However, your influenza comparison has a problem: Rotavirus is a genus of virus, and so are Influenzavirus A, Influenzavirus B and Influenzavirus C, each of which have separate articles.

Unless you hate this idea, I suggest we ask Eubulides and Sandy (and possibly DO11.10 and Fvasconcellos) to give their opinions. Colin°^Talk 19:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giving an opinion on an article that is on its way to FAC puts me in a tricky COI position; I know ya'll can figure it out without me :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this sort of opinion (should we, shouldn't we) could be a problem? That's a shame. Just to be clear to Graham, I'm still undecided on this one. Please don't feel under any pressure from me. Colin°^Talk 20:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding (sigh) that anything can be a problem if someone makes it a problem (double sigh). So, I try to confine my article comment now to MOS and other straightforward issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, my ISP has been, (and still is at home), out of action. Colin, I appreciate all the work, but I don't like the split of the article at all. I think we'll just end up with two B class articles and somone will put a merge template on them in no time at all. I know the virology is difficult for some, but this is no reason to separate it. I find Quantum theory really difficult, but I'm not going to suggest that all the mathematics should go into a separate article. Even Roger Glass's lay guide to rotavirus In Scientifc American includes the virology, albeit in less detail than we have.[2]. I think it was a good move to put the Microbiology at the end, (although it has caused some problems higher up). None of the rotavirus chapters I have at home, (and there's >12), splits the desease from the virology. I just don't think that the two "stories" can be told separately.--GrahamColm ^Talk 09:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham, I would be happy to review it for you, but I'm afraid it will have to wait until this weekend. I'll post my thoughts on the talk page....--DO11.10 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks D011.10, and extra special thanks to Colin for today's copy editing. My plan to go to FAC with article on the 9th of March is because I am taking a break and I'm going to Seville on the 1st of March and will stay for 7 days, (I want to take lots of free photographs for the project). On my return, I will have a free week to address the Flack of the FAC. My prime motive is, clearly, to get Rotavirus to FAC, because it's an important subject, but my secondary motive is to set a Wikipedia standard for these smaller virological articles. Best wishes and thanks once more. Graham. --GrahamColm ^Talk 23:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graham,

Two questions. Why is "faecal-oral route" considered distinct from "contact with contaminated surfaces and objects"? The source (35) also says "Rotavirus is transmitted by fecal-oral contact and possibly by contaminated surfaces and hands and respiratory spread." Aren't contaminated surfaces and hands just things along the route? Or is there a possibility that (a) you sweat/sneeze rotavirus onto your hands or (b) you can absorb rotavirus through your hands, without ingesting it, thereby avoiding either or both faecal and oral aspects?

Hi Colin, two good questions. Contaminated surfaces and things (fomites) are just things along the route. Dennehy PH. (35) meant the "possibly" to refer to the "respiratory" route as is explained in the body of the article. An example of a badly written abstract IMO, (although the article is good). As you have spotted, I changed the emphasis slightly in our article.

When I read "Rotavirus is transmitted by the faecal-oral route, contact with contaminated surfaces and objects,[34] and possibly by the respiratory route." I saw this as a list of three transmission methods, not a list of two, with "contact...objects" in parenthesis. Is that how you meant it? The text used to say:

Rotaviruses are transmitted by the fecal-oral route. Person-to-person spread through contaminated hands is the most important means by which rotaviruses are transmitted [46] though it can be readily acquired through contaminated objects or utensils.

You reworded it when Eubulides questioned the "readily". We've lost the "hands" are more important than "objects" aspect, which I think is interesting but perhaps your sources let you down? There does seem to be some doubt expressed in the various abstracts you've used. I think the current text is a bit ambiguous. Could you try to rephrase it, and bring back the hands if you can?

Yes of course and you are right, there is doubt and we might have to come clean about it. I have written myself a note. I'l do this Saturday afternoon. It's getting late and I'm working early tommorow. Graham. --GrahamColm ^Talk 20:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin°^Talk 20:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC) My second question is that given there are trillions and trillions of these viruses in diarrhoeal stools, why did it take until 1973 to find them? According to your WP Flewett article, Bishop was looking in gut biopsies and Flewett looked in stools. So until then were people looking up noses and in ears? How could you miss them! OK, they are a bit small, but still. I'm sure you've seen The Far Side cartoon of "early microbiologists". This is the picture I've got in my head. Colin°^Talk 18:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second good question and I hate to name-drop but one which I asked Flewett himself: (1) no-one thought viruses could cause diarrhoea until Al Kapikians discovery of Norwalk virus in the very early 1970s, (Al Kapikian got the idea of looking directly in faeces following a stint working in England with the team that discovered Hepatitis B virus in blood using electron microscopy), (2) there weren't many electron microscopes around, (at least in hospital labs) and (3) you see a lot of bacteriophages in pooh. In fact, Flewett's team saw rotaviruses in stool samples years before they eventually published but as nothing grew in the cell cultures that were then routinely used to detect viruses, they were ignored until Ruth Bishop published. --GrahamColm ^Talk 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just butting in here... The History section might benefit from a mention of Koch's postulates and the related inability to culture the virus. --Una Smith (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Colin, thanks for all the work on the article that you have put in today. I don't know how to thank you. Graham.

Isn't Colin amazing? Funny that the best critical commentary on medical article reviews always comes from Colin :-) Methinks it's because He Just Cares. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He also makes you think, like I have been for the past twenty minutes. I want to add more to the above. Since the success of poliovirus discovery, cell culture was the favoured method for virus detection throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Ironically, gastroenteritis viruses typically don't grow well, (if at all eg. Norovirus ), in cultured cells, (rotavirus couldn't be grown in this way until the trick was discovered in the early 1980s). Those researchers who were lucky enough to have access to very expensive electron microscopes were, (during the 1950s and 1960s), more interested in virus structure than detection. Moreover the method of negative staining was not commonly used, shadowing techniques using metals were prefered, that require purified or semi-purified viruses. Flewett got his microscope in the late 1950s/ early 1960s, solely to aid the rapid differentiation of smallpox and chickenpox in clinical material. In the late 1960s June Almeida obtained an ultracentrifuge and examined centrifuged serum from hepatitis victims. She was one of the first people to see hepatitis B virus particles. Al Kapikian, whilst on a sabbatical visted her laboratory and learnt from her the technique of negative stain electron microscopy, a technique he put to good use following the outbreak of gastroenteritis in Norwalk, Ohio. He discovered Norovirus, had it been kids affected and not adults, he could have discovered rotavirus. The 1970s became the golden age for diarrhoea viruses, all thanks to the electron microscope. Now we know about, Norovirus and other Caliciviruses, Rotavirus, Astrovirus, Coronavirus, Adenovirus 40/41 and Torovirus. More importantly, we now know that not all viruses can been grown (yet) in the laboratory.--GrahamColm ^Talk 20:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you just thought right over my head :-) (And, I'm green with envy that you're going to vacation in my favorite place; I wonder how the Alhambra gardens are in March, I yearn for an evening in the Alfonso XIII and some gazpacho.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that info, Graham. Interesting stuff; you should write a book. "the golden age for diarrhoea viruses" – there's a phrase you don't see every day! Colin°^Talk 22:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! You'll make my head swell. It has been a pleasure reviewing this fine article. Graham, you have show great patience with me, letting an ignorant amateur wander all over your subject. You know you can revert me anytime. Colin°^Talk 20:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubella virus

This page is for the virus. For the disease, see Rubella. I'm curious :-) Colin°^Talk 15:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Oh dear don't you approve? I reading up on recent developments in Rubella virology and to do it justice I felt it should go into a separate article. We could merge a later date. Thoughts? Graham. --GrahamColm ^Talk 15:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, just after the one article or two debate, I was surprised. I'm glad you have enough material to make a separate article worthwhile. Colin°^Talk 15:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't know if it will make a substantial separate article, but this will give me space to work on the virology, without disrupting Rubella. I don't want to use my sandbox because that would deny input from other interested editors. We can take a look at all three articles, (Rubella, Rubella virus and Congenital rubella syndrome), later and take stock perhaps? I expect the virology will take me a week or so to do.--GrahamColm ^Talk 20:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Football articles

Apparently some confusion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Ipswich Town F.C.; I've not followed the issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion is over the perennial discussion over whether it's allowable to refer to a club in the singular and the plural. As in discretionary plurals. Anyway, I think you, Graham, have generously made the relevant edits, I can't see whether there are any more issues (mainly because I didn't see there was a problem in the first place!) - I'd be very grateful if you could confirm that there are no more outstanding issues and perhaps whether you think the content is featured quality. As I said at the FAC, the article has been copyedited twice by some very committed reviewers (both football fans so perhaps therein lies the issue with these singular/plurals) so perhaps your outside view would be a good one too. It's quite rare for WP:FOOTBALL to get a copyeditor from outside the project! Thanks for taking the time to comment and to make some changes to the article, very much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a minor issue, and that's why I just left it as a comment. It was the inconsistency that bugged me; plural in one sentence, singular in the next. Discretionary plurals often sound likre a subjunctive to me, but even armed with my copy of Fowler, I don't want get involved in this debate ;-) Yes, I think the article is worthy of FA. Let me read it again and I'll post my vote. Best wishes, Graham. --GrahamColm ^Talk 16:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham. I really appreciate you taking the time on this. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, thanks for your conditional support. I see you delinked the dates you objected to. I've added a response to your comment at the FAC, it's a touchy subject it seems! Hopefully now you're happy that the article meets MOS/grammar etc rules and moreover is an example of some half decent work! Cheers again. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the conditional. Best of luck with the FAC. I was looking for a Civility award template to put on your user page, but I can't find one :( Time to get back to my Viruses. Best wishes, Graham. --GrahamColm ^Talk 18:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil? Me? I'm blushing... thanks again! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Villa history

Could I ask you to take a look at History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present) when you have the time and leave a note on my talk? The article has been read and copyedited by three experienced editors and I really don't think that there are serious grammar problems. I think the main problem that you have is the issue over plural/singular when referring to the club and the 1960s/sixties which is personal preference. Any problems will need to go on the talk page as the FAC has been archived. Regards. Woody (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post to Woody and Rambling as well, this just came up here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course Woody. Best wishes, Graham. --GrahamColm ^Talk 20:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedit, they all look good and I won't be reverting. Please don't feel guilty over the FAC, all opposes are constructive and the article is being improved as a result. Obviously, it is not a good feeling to have an article fail an FAC, but it the reasoning behind it is completely understandable. When you have the chance, a further look would be great thanks. Woody (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good. I fixed the link to Wembley Stadium to go to Wembley Stadium (1923). I will see what laser brain thinks then let you know about a re-nom. Thanks again. Woody (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present) is back up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present). Your opinions would be welcome given your previous interest. Thanks. Woody (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have just left me support and comments at the FAC. Best of luck.--GrahamColm ^Talk 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, and thanks again for your Copyedit. Much appreciated. Woody (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed reference section in Talk:One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich

Hi, a reference section on a talk page will simply get buried by later comments added by clicking the "+" tab. I removed the section and converted your refs to inline text using <nowiki></nowiki> tags. References on talk pages can be informal (e.g. put in parens). I hope you don't mind, but I wanted to add a new comment at the end of the talk page using the "+" tab. --Jtir (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I course I don't mind. It's great to see someone working on this important article.--GrahamColm ^Talk 19:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a relief and thanks for your comments. I added Klimoff's book to the Refs section — it sounds like a superb source for the article. --Jtir (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian for "Old Whiskers" in One Day

Hi, I see that you have Russian language expertise in addition to an impressive collection on Solzhenitsyn. There was an earlier discussion of the interpretation of "Old Whiskers" at Russian for "Old Whiskers". Would you like to add anything? BTW, do you know of a source that explicitly says AS was arrested for referring to Stalin that way? The article is citing "Current Biography, 1969", which seems reliable, but it would be nice to know more details. --Jtir (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the letters AS often referred to Stalin as the moustached one, but the truth of the circumsatnces surrounding his arrest are far more complex; he was accused of anti-soviet propaganda under Article 58 of the soviet criminal code paragraph 10, and of "founding a hostile organisation" under paragraph 11. These were complex laws at the time. AS was not arrested for using a euphemism for Stalin; he was arrested because of his criticisms. It's become a myth that AS was arrested because of a "quip"—he was not. He was seen, albeit in a time of Stalinist paranoia, as a threat to the soviet system. Ironically, history has proved the stalinists right in this regard. For details of this you need to see. <ref>Scammell, Michael. Solzhenitsyn, A biography, (1984), pages, 152-154,Paladin. ISBN 0-586-08538-6</ref> and Bjökegrens, Hans. A biography of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. (1972), Introduction, ISBN 0-85628-005-4</ref>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamColm (talk • contribs) 00:07, February 20, 2008

Thanks for the additional details and the citations. I erred in asking my question, but fortunately not in the article, which makes clear that he was arrested for his criticism, not his use of an epithet. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn doesn't give details of the charges. I have copied your reply to Talk:One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and signed it for you both there and here. --Jtir (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the charges and the sources as you provided them. There could probably be a brief statement about his trial(?). --Jtir (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've added some more details on his arrest and "trial" to the article. Graham--GrahamColm ^Talk 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Jtir (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		Wikipedia Motivation Award
		He there it's me, thanks for answering my questions/queries/comments on ODITLOID (the book), thanks for encouraging me, and helping, please provide anything you can on grounds that it is reliable for the ODITLOID book, and please contact me! I wanna know what you think. LOTRrules (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

Thanks for the referances. I've been trying to look for sources on AS for a long time. I'll check these out from my local library as soon as possible. Thanks also for responding. Any other time I need you I'll be sure to contact you! LOTRrules (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Written Chinese FAC

I've gone through the article, including your edits, and made more edits (and reverted a few of yours, for clarity). As I mention on the FAC page for Written Chinese, some of your edits broke sentences completely, and had to be reverted, at least in part. Where possible, I have pared the text down for conciseness. Please have another look at your convenience. BrianTung (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Corrs

Hello, I've like to say that I've addressed your concerns raised in The Corrs' WP:FAC, but the pessimistic side of me says I quite haven't finished removing the redunancy. So, I was wondering if you would be willing to look at the article again and shout out any criticisms so I can fix them. Cheers, σмgнgσмg ^(talk) 03:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deja Vu

I left some comments there. Do you still have concerns about the article? Thanks. --Efe (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Indopug has substantially copy edited the article. --Efe (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:May Day Parade 1957 Moscow.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:May Day Parade 1957 Moscow.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA

Hi, I've nominated the article ODITLOID please leave comments of support (click on the link at the top FA template: "leave comments) because I think the article deserves to be featured. Also if we could blend in the referances on discussion page it might get featured quicker. LOTRrules (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

Thanks for your advice I'll de-list it. I'll prbably have it completed in 2 weeks then after that. I'll let you know what'll happen. I think I need a break myself. But I'll be happy to de-list it in 3 days the adive people are giving me is very constructive and precise. Thank you again. Hope to see you soon fellow Wikipedian, enjoy you'r break. LOTRrules (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Khrushchev and Tito 1955.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Khrushchev and Tito 1955.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Sholokov and Khrushchev 1959.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sholokov and Khrushchev 1959.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Khrushchev Early Photograph.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Khrushchev Early Photograph.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Khrushchev collection

These images, from my collection, are all in the public domain and the creator is unknown. I do not have the time for all this. If Wiki does not want them, that's fine by me.--GrahamColm ^Talk 23:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]