User talk:Graham Beards/Archives/2012

2012

Definition

As you have suggested I am raising here the question of why you consider a definition of a virus at the start of an article discussing viruses to be a problem. It seems a logical place to place it. The definition is taken from a textbook of virology and seems to cover most of the known cases up to its date of publication. The virophages might create a problem for this definition as do the viroids if we include Hepatitis D as a viroid. Since you seem to have a problem with this I would be grateful if you could explain your position. DrMicro (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't mean here, I meant the Virus Discussion Page, but never mind. The problem I see with this sentence in the Lead is that it is too technical for many readers. This FA has been carefully crafted, with input from non-scientists, to introduce the readers gently into a subject that many find baffling. Having expressions such as "acellular", "nucleotide genomes", "encode at least one protein" and " transmitted horizontally" in the second sentence, will put many readers off straight away. We haven't told them yet about viral reproduction, but they need to know this to understand this definition. And, its inclusion mentioned something in the Lead that is not in the Main Article, which we do not do in FAs. You noticed that I simply moved the sentence down, rather than delete it. We must, especially in the Lead, write in the most accessible English we can on this highly technical subject. There is a similar problem with the recently added section on triangulation numbers — this is probably gobbledygook to the average reader. It's something I have been meaning to tackle but have not gotten around to yet. You say that the definition is taken from the source. How close is the wording? If it is too close this could be another issue. I do not disagree with the definition and I don't think the satellite viruses go against it, and viroids aren't viruses–that's why we call them viroids. It's it's placement at the top of the article, which is the main problem. Graham Colm (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the confusion re Talk page. I knew you would see it here and I wasn't sure which page you meant. An apology seems in order: I didn't see that you had moved it which is why I replaced it.

Concerning the definition: the version here is very close to the original. This is permitted under copyright: it is two sentences from an entire textbook (hence quantitatively a trivial quantity) and has been properly cited. Secondly this is as you correctly have noted a technical subject. For that reason precise definitions are important to ensure clear communication. Technical definitions resemble each other very closely for this reason.

The satellite viruses might qualify under this definition but I'm not at all sure about the virophages. They had not been described at the time this text book was published (1995)

The triangulation number probably deserves a page on its own as it it repeatedly referred to on the pages dealing with the various viruses.DrMicro (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is "clear communication" that is the issue. That's why I don't think it is helpful in the Lead. It is a definition aimed at virologists. I think discourse on triangulation numbers would be better placed in Capsid. Graham Colm (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was rather thinking of students who can use a formal definition of a virus for essays and exams. There is a page specifically for non technical introductions to viruses but your position has merit also.

Re Triangulation numbers. I agree that Capsids is a good place to put a note on this. I think it probably could use a separate page because it is referred to on quite a number of pages where the viruses are discussed. No harm in having it in more than one place. Its not a topic that is typically explained properly in most books on virology - or perhaps I should say most of those I have read. Maybe that simply reflects my poor choice of books. It is something I will have to put onto my already too long ToDo list. DrMicro (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S&M (song)

Hey, what do you think of it now? It's just been c/e by the GOCE for FA. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 13:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of viruses

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

"Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources"

The article is based mainly on secondary sources. This does not mean that primary sources are entirely excluded from use here. If this policy is to be universally implemented, primary research material such as this [Patterson KD (April 1992). "Yellow fever epidemics and mortality in the United States, 1693–1905". Soc Sci Med 34 (8): 855–65] probably should be removed or at least commented out.

Wikipedia:No original research

"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia"

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

The evolution paper has been published in a peer reviewed journal. As you know this does not mean that it is correct - recall the story about retroviruses and chronic fatigue syndrome for example. The assertions in the paper have been reported here as a simple fact as is required by WP policy. The statements in the paper are supported by earlier published secondary sources by different authors: even a completely different discipline - comparative lingustics rather than molecular virology.

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

"If an important scientific finding is so new that no reliable reviews have been published on the subject, it may be helpful to cite the primary source that reported the original result."

I believe this to be the case here. Perhaps you may be able to source this fact elsewhere? If I I would be very grateful. My own feeling concerning this policy statement is that it should be required to cite the primary source rather than merely 'helpful'.

In sum this last edit seems either to be inconsistent with this last edit or with the published policy of WP. To be consistent either all primary references should be removed or commented out or ones compatible with the published policy documents should be permitted.

My own feeling is that an over rigid adherence to secondary source would impoverish WP significantly.

It is also recommended in the policy documents where an editor disagrees with an edit that is compatible with the published policy but one that he/she disagree with for some reason it is usual to put a notice on the talk page of the editor or the article talk page before commenting it out or deleting it. The purpose of this policy as I understand it is to reduce the likelihood of edit wars which seems sensible to me.DrMicro (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested, I have rephrased the sentence in question and moved another down to a more appropriate section.[1] This is what I wrote on your Talk Page before commenting:

Hi, thanks for your interest in the article, which I wrote last year. I am concerned that you have used a primary study to support the statement, that measles virus emerged "most probably in the 11th and 12th centuries", and for "The current epidemic strain evolved at the beginning of the 20th century – most probably between 1908 and 1943". I have taken great care to adhere to WP:Primary and have mainly used books as sources. I know the article is not fully compliant yet, but to use primary studies to support such strong statements goes against our guidelines. I don't like reverting, so are there secondary or better still a tertiary sources available? Wikipedia is not like our academic work where we are trained to use primary studies. It is a conservative encyclopedia. The use of "most probably" in these contexts contravenes WP:NPOV so at least rephrasing is in order. Best wishes. Graham.

As I said, my main objection was the use of "most probably" based on a primary study. Graham Colm (talk)

(TPS) I also have problems using that primary study paper. The authors admit their findings were a surprise because the consensus to that date was for a much earlier date (prehistoric). This should ring alarm bells -- we have a primary source overturning the scientific consensus. They note the linguistic evidence pointing towards the 7th century and claim their findings do not disagree with that possibility because their 95 credible interval bars include this -- ranging from 700 to 1600. The "most probably" actually applies to a extended period of time. WP:WEIGHT requires us to consult secondary sources to gauge whether a fact or opinion deserves coverage and has consensus among reliable sources. Has the scientific community accepted this new date? See WP:RECENTISM for why we are in no rush to include the latest (possibly controversial) findings. Colin°^Talk 13:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific 'consensus' to which you refer as far as I can tell was based entirely upon speculation. The first reliable descriptions of measles date from the 11th century. It seems a little difficult to suggest that the previous physicians were so poor as to fail to recognise this disease entirely. It has a number of quite distinctive characteristics and the descriptions given by physicians such as Hippocrates for many diseases are still regarded as acceptable. Genetic analysis has been used to date the evolution of a number of other viruses.

It has been a matter of curiosity for many years why Hippocrates did not recognise malaria caused by Plasmodium falciparum. Genetic analysis has shown that this organism may not be become common in the Mediterranean area until the time of the Roman Empire - some centuries after Hippocrates wrote his books. The programme used in this paper (BEAST) has been tested on a variety of organisms and the results appear to be credible. The first description of Dengue fever dates to the 1770s. Genetic work gives a probable date of evolution ~1800. The expansion of Hepatitis C in Egypt and Japan has been dated to their introduction of widespread intravenous antimony use. It has been used to example the population genetics of bisons in North America and the results reflect the known historical record of decline and now their slow recovery. It has also been used to produce some results that are clearly at variance with the historical record: the example I have in mind is the paper on the appearance of malaria in the Americas that was published in the journal Science some time ago suggesting that malaria was present in the Americas at least 50,000 years ago. This early date was at variance with the known archeology. The error in the skyline plot was later located in a misunderstanding in the use of the - admittedly - complex statistics. Interpretation of such data has improved since now that this problem is known. This programme has produced some what may appear to be unusual results - the evolution of bocavirus being dated to ~1985 for example - but given its track record the estimates it has produced have been generally supported by the available historic records.

The scientific 'consensus' to which you refer strikes one more of Aristotle than of Al Kindi, Bacon or Newton. Given the fact that BEAST has been tested several times against the available historical record and produces results consistent with what can be verified and that idea that measles is an ancient disease seems to be based entirely on speculative opinion with no supporting I know which date of evolution I prefer.DrMicro (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this is not relevant. The salient point is "date of evolution". Was it a Tuesday? I have rephrased the wording to read, "The measles virus appears to have fully diverged from the then-widespread rinderpest virus by the 11th and 12th centuries". A zoonosis could have occurred for centuries before measles virus became restricted to humans. Please do not try to blind me with science – I already know this stuff. To imply that Colin's views on this are stuck in some other epoch is rude. It is still the current consensus, hence the authors' surprise in their results. There is much in the paper that is open to criticism and which the authors themselves are critical. And which you interpreted wrongly. This is not the place to engage in scientific debate. We use and reflect the best reliable sources, preferably, but not elusively, secondary ones. I hope I'm wrong, but you seem to be on some sort of crusade and are adding data from primary sources that have used these molecular clocks all over the place. You are not gaining any respect from other editors by your maverick dismissal of their concerns over your contributions and your disregard of our policies and guidelines. To be blunt, I suggest you publish your views in a peer reviewed journal. This is not the place for this. Graham Colm (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your point. Thank you.DrMicro (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Sincere Wishes For This Festive Season

		★★★★★★★★ Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012 ★★★★★★★★
		I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. I Am Very Happy To be Part of Wikipedia And To Have Great Friends Like You. Cheers. - From A Big Fan of ----> Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jivesh, this is the nicest, and kindest posting on my page for a long time. Graham Colm (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awww so nice to read that. You are welcome. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virus

I've screwed up the refs a bit changing some to vcite. The first1/last1 stuff needs to be just author. I'll fix it later tonight. Colin°^Talk 20:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed it. The ICTV website links are broken. Is some of that paywalled now? Also the 2008 list could be updated to 2009 [2] or [3]. Colin°^Talk 21:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits and fixes. I'm at work tomorrow, but I will update those ICTV links in the morning. Best wishes, Graham Graham Colm (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Graham Beards. You have new messages at Wikipedian Penguin's talk page.
Message added 16:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common cold

Have been putting a lot of work into this page in an effort to get all the articles here Book:Health care up to GA as part of the translation project [4]. Wondering as the local virus expert if I could get your feedback ( and of course feel free to make improvements directly ). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also wondering if you could quickly go over Hepatitis B to make sure you are happy with it before I send it for translation. Thanks. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, I'll follow this up later today or tomorrow. Best wishes. Graham Colm (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James, I think the virology in common cold is pitched about right. It was a good idea just to say "enteroviruses" and not break this group down into echovirus and coxsackie viruses etc. With regard to hepatitis B, while clearly not FA level, all the salient facts are there. Well done for taking this on and driving it forward. Best wishes. Graham Colm (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia

Thanks for the great comments. If there are any significant changes or you would like me to re-record any section, just let me know. I try to record featured articles but do requests if there is something else you would like recorded. As for things in parenthesis, it is sometimes tough to record/speak the contents but Wikipedia is meant for reading and parentheses are an integral part of writing. The fact is that I can choose not to record most things in parenthesis as the contents are often not necessary for learning about the subject. If the contents are necessary, then the writer should consider writing separate complete statements without falling into the trap of just using commas instead of parentheses. This not only helps readers like myself but also the blind or hard of reading that use speech synthesizers to "read" the article. Have a great new year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PopularOutcast (talk • contribs) 19:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

A Happy New Year to you Graham. Hope its a great one. Colin°^Talk 12:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin, and I wish you all the best for 2012. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hepatitis C

Just did an update of this page. Am a little confused what the RNA means in the top of this image you have created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hepatitis_C_serology.png Any comments regarding this article as I bring it to GAN?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James, I have cut the RNA from the figure. At one time the viral RNA in the serum was thought to come and go. Following the development of more sensitive assays, this is no longer considered to be the norm. Graham Colm (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Graham, I'm so sorry I failed to wish you a Happy New Year sooner. I'm back! [5] All the best, and thank you for your ever valued support and concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell – this is a a bit of a shock, but at least we have regained a gifted content creator. Graham Colm (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References at Hep B

I see a number of the refs for hep B are based on templates. This will cause me problems as we translate the article and then try to reintegrate the translation back into another wiki, yes? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. Take a look at the Finnish translation of Rotavirus. (The edit tab is the one labelled "Muokkaa"). Graham Colm (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RNA lead length

Hi!

I still feel that the RNA lead is about 1 or 2 paragraphs too long (see the guidelines on maximum length). I guess some unfolded information should be moved into the sections or just cut from the lead if they're included in sections already. What is your opinion on that? kocio (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have trimmed the Lead section a little [6]. There's a lot to be said about RNA, so when the article is expanded, a few more details should go back into the Lead. Best wishes. Graham Colm (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, thanks! Now there's plenty of room to add some more details in the future. Personally I like strict definition (in this case just the first sentence) to be in a single paragraph for fast readability, but if you prefer more information in the first paragraph, it's OK for me. Have a nice day. kocio (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig and David on Platform 1 ?

But that's only based on my assumption of 15 December 2011: [7] we really need to check the source, if it matters? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it would read better if it said "a" Birmingham train station. There were (and still are) two central stations in Birmingham at that time – Birmingham New Street and Birmingham Snow Hill. The link to New Street should be removed if this cannot be proven. It matters because I might have erroneously told friends, while waiting for a delayed Virgin train, that Wittgenstein and Pinsent last met here. :-) Graham Colm (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arh, bless (.. wipes tear from rim of chipped white British Rail teacup). The Norway destination doesn't really give any clues, does it, although I had assumed that a train to London would have meant New Street. Am guessing also that Pinsent was living in Birmingham at the time, but no clues in his article. I have no idea what the source was for this in the first place. But agree better to leave as it now is. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Repairing the Serial Vandalism!

Thanks for repairing the serial vandalism by the user with the foul name. And so fast! I saw one damaged page, but you fixed it before I could. I suspected it was a malicious person and went from page to page, only to find that, yes, there was vandalism, but you had already repaired it. Good work! :-) I tried to figure out how to notify Wikipedia, but the account was suspended before I could figure out how to do so. I don't know if you notified them, or if there was a trigger based on the string of edits followed by reversions. I hope Wikipedia can do something proactive, like tracing the IP origin, to prevent the same person from creating a new account and doing the same thing. Dave Braun, Crystal Lake, Illinois, USA 1:39 AM (CST), January 11, 2012.

Oops

Thanks for fixing my edit at pneumothorax, don't know how that happened. --WS (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome :-) Graham Colm (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jivesh Here

Greetings Graham. I cannot believe you supported "Halo". I am so happy that my eyes became watery. Lol, I am not exaggerating. Actually, whenever I do something for Beyonce, I do it with much love and dedication. Her articles are like parts of me. Graham, thank you wholeheartedly. A support from you is like one of my wishes come true. God only knows how happy I am right now. :D By the way, what is copyscape? Is it the spotcheck stuff? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jivesh, my support was deserved. I think Sandy is still a little concerned over MoS issues, but these should not get in the way of promotion. I often find them hard to spot, unless they are glaringly obvious. Copyscape is not for spot checking – it's a service I pay for that checks for duplicated content on other webpages. Most often such content has been taken from Wikipedia, but in some, rare, cases I find copyright violations. Graham Colm (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh okay. I thought it had to do with spotchecks. Thanks for those kind words. I think I have addressed Sandy's concerns. I went through the article again and asked other two users to through it as well. And Sandy herself fixed some issues. It's a honor to have Sandy help me a bit. :D Graham, sorry for looking so overexcited but I am very thankful. :)) After "Halo", I will start to work on "If I Were a Boy". In fact, I have already started. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jivesh, you can get as excited as you want :-) We don't get paid for doing this, excitement is one of our few rewards.Graham Colm (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Now comes the question I ask everyone. Do you like/listen to Beyonce's music? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not listened to much of Beyonce's music (although I like If I Were a Boy) I am a life-long fan of Paul Simon. Graham Colm (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for late reply. I think you like "If I Were a Boy" as it is a folk rock song. You have to listen to her latest album 4. It was critically acclaimed (for once :D). But it under-performed compared to her previous albums. She has sold only 2.4 million copies in 6 months. But I kind of expected it as its singles did not do well at all. (This has happened for the first time with her. There is a first time for everything. And she did not promote the album because she was pregnant. She delivered this month). The album has a score of 76 based on 36 professional reviews. It sounds like music from the 1980s. Price etc. Trust me, you might like at least 7 out of 15 songs. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can

Hi Graham. How are you? Hope you remember me, you commented on "Rehab" which I nominated it for FA. Luckily the article passed on the third FAC :) ! Anyway, I am wishing "Unfaithful" to be my second FAC. Since I trust you, can you please add comments on the article's talk page regarding how can I improve the prose. Of course I mean do it If you can. Thanks, I would be grateful. — Tomica (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tomica, I'll take a look at the article over the weekend. Best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. And thanks for applying dashes. Waiting for your comments ;) ! — Tomica (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the slight c/e. I think it really helped the prose. I resolved some of the prose issues and am about to post comments there, just to re-write the first paragraph from the background section. — Tomica (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Greetings Graham. How have you been lately? Hey, whenever you have some free time, please have a look at this section of "If I Were a Boy". I mean, please copy-edit it if necessary. Thanks. Take care. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi from Wikipedian Penguin

Hello, Graham Colm. To begin with, thank you for clarifying the fused participles for me and for giving me the useful link. It helped a lot and I worry a lot less now, but am still conscious of it. If you are free this weekend (or anytime!), may you run an eye over an article I've put tedious work into—"Love the Way You Lie"—and give me comments regarding prose concerns? It's been look at by a few experienced editors already, but considering FAC's standards are undeniably high and difficult to fulfil, advice from a FAC regular is always appreciated. I very well understand that the length is an issue, but I've tried my best to limit the article to the necessary details. Right now, the main issue for me would be the Chart performance section, which may have an awkward flow, but I've done what I could.

Anyway, thank you so much if you'll be giving me your input on the article. Regards, —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penguin, nice to hear from you. I'll take a look over the weekend. Best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham, thank you for the comments and for shedding light on the prose. I think I have a reasonable idea of what you mean with regard to the article as a whole. I'll take some more consideration into improving it because I had a feeling it was a bit far from C1a. It also looks like I'll need to get some more strategic distance for copy editing. Regards, —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong button?

Oopsie, I think you hit the infamous wrong button :) Greetings! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, silly me ;) I have just noticed - it's been a long day. Graham Colm (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just assume you were trying to give me a "thumbs up" a la Facebook but hit the big red one by mistake :-) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, something like that ;-) Graham Colm (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, remember all those folks up in arms when Raul mistakenly reverted an Oppose? Where are they when you mistakenly revert a Support ? :) :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaks volumes :) Graham Colm (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear GrahamColm,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no, I'm far to busy in real life and have to ration my time here. Best wishes and good luck with the project. Graham Colm (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Yep, thanks. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salutations, Mr Delegate!

I am very pleased that you have agreed to serve as a FA delegate and look forward to seeing you in action. When you have settled into your role, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss with you one of the main concerns I have developed as a result of several years' FAC reviewing: the extent to which articles continue to be nominated prematurely, without the careful pre-attention to the specifics of the FAC criteria. Take a look at the current nominee Stanley Donen for a good example of what I mean. There is, unfortunately, a perception that preparatory review processes are a waste of time, because the "reviewers that matter" don't review outside FAC. Can we alter that? The main culprits are articles that have lacked prior review attention (though some bad stuff still gets over the GA hurdle). Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brian and thank you for the salutation. I agree with your concerns on the problems of premature nominations, and you will have seen that I commented at Stanley Donen but not on the lack of preparation. Yes, I would like to discuss this with you after I have learnt the ropes, and established a routine. I will be interested in any ideas you have. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Graham, and please know that I am willing to answer questions if you want guidance or advice during this transitional period. Speaking to Brian's point, we as reviewers can help you by posting early opposition to obviously unprepared nominations. --Laser brain (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andy, early opposition would be an answer and I am prepared to act swiftly in such cases. And yes, I would be grateful to have as many mentors as there are those who are willing. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too am very happy with this decision. I think you'll make an excellent delegate. Congrats and good luck! Auree ^★★ 20:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Graham. I'm looking forward to working with you. Ucucha (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support Auree and Ucucha; it's going to be an interesting change to my contributions to the project. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a page at User:Ucucha/FAC coordination for you, Ian, and me to coordinate our schedules. Ucucha (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have replied there. Graham Colm (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is why Raul gets the big bucks, for bringing in great people. Gratz! - Dank (push to talk) 22:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Graham! --Colin°^Talk 23:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Graham, I look forward to working with you and Ucucha! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me as well, I'm sure you'll do just fine. I notice that you made a brave start by promoting an article I'd opposed. ;-) I was on the point of striking my oppose anyway, so I'm just joshing. Malleus Fatuorum 12:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations my friend. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to add new FAs to WIkipedia:Goings-on (I did this one for you). I have a list at the bottom of my user page with links to all the pages that need to be edited when you promote or archive; that may come in useful. I don't think there's a description anywhere of the steps involved in promotion, so I don't fault you for missing this. Ucucha (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know about that. Graham Colm (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent choice appointing you. Congrats from me too. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Mr. Delegate. Don't be a stranger.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me, too. Moisejp (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for your encouraging words. And special thanks to Malleus for his kindness to the new boy. Graham Colm (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Franco-Mongol alliance

Thanks for handling the promotion. :) I did take the liberty of moving the article on the WP:FA page, from Historical biographies to "History",[8] as I felt that was more appropriate. Everything else looks good though! --El on ka 15:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FYI, when promoting new featured articles, make sure to update the count at the top of the page. Raul654 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for looking over my shoulder, that was my first promotion - and first mistake, I'll try not to make any more. :( Best wishes. Graham Colm (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, mistakes are how we learn! Once when someone asked me how come I was so good with computers, I replied, "Well, I learn from my mistakes, and I'm able to make mistakes really really fast!" Heh. Ultimately, I'm just pleased that the FA nom is finally closed. A six-week nom was pretty exhausting, and took way more wiki-time than I had originally budgeted for the process. So it's good to have closure, in more ways than one! --El on ka 19:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the count of MilHist A-Class articles as they're promoted is one of those things the original coordinator (now emeritus) Kirill often finds himself performing when others forget. I don't think he's had to to do it too many times for me, but no-one's perfect... Main thing with promoting/archiving is getting the actual call right, the housekeeping comes from habit (or a checklist)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Julia Martha Thomas

A while back you kindly supported the featured article candidacy of Murder of Julia Martha Thomas. I thought you might like to know that the article is being considered for the Main Page on 2 March, the anniversary of the event. If you have any comments on this proposal, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#March 2. Prioryman (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my support. Graham Colm (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Virus Revival

You have previously shown an interest in Wikiproject Viruses by adding your name to our List of Participants. We are currently reviving the project, and would be grateful if you could indicate whether you are still interested in contributing or not on our Talk Page. You do not need to have expertise in virology to contribute to our project, as we welcome people with any degree of knowledge of the subject.
Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Viruses at 17:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Article restructuring at the Beatles

There is a discussion taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photomicrograph or computer simulation?

The image at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rotavirus_with_antibody.jpg is described as a photomicrograph -an image taken with an electron microscope (SEM?), yet a similar image is described as a computer generated image. Is this actually a raw unretouched image from an electron microscope? The background is solid black, there is no noise, I would find that incredible if so. Is this a composite of two images taken separately? If not, how could the antibodies only attach to one? Please give more details on how this image was produced. If a photograph, solution, lighting, SEM/TEM, voltage, etc. If a simulation, what software and dataset was used? Also, size bars (rulers) are appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.248.199 (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Meager

Any particular reason why this was not promoted? There were no opposes and the article is overall complete. It is like other FA volcano articles such as Mount St. Helens, Mauna Kea and Nevado del Ruiz. You just wasted my time replying to others on the FAC and fixing their problems. If it's because the article has no information about climbing, its first ascent, etc that is because there is no information available for those topics. Overall, they are a minor subject. If there is no good reason why this article was not promoted I will readd it to the FAC. Volcanoguy 07:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Kells

I notice that this old FA is classified under "Literature and Drama" rather than Art, which is clearly wrong as the text is just the usual four Gospels, and it is the extensive illumination which makes it famous. Meanwhile the pretty similar St Cuthbert Gospel, also a text of one gospel, is in "Religion, mysticism and mythology". As the main modern interest in this is that it is the oldest intact Western book, this has a stronger claim to be in "Literature and Drama", though personally I think both should be in Art. These are the only two manuscript book FAs we have as far as I can see, though there is Anthony Roll (Art, though it is an illustrated naval inventory). Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, yes this caused me to pause for thought when I listed your FA. I agree with you and if you want to move them to Art, architecture and archaeology this OK by me. I don't have time to do it right now. Best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do that - I think if all decorated manuscripts are in art there will be consistency, & that will normally be the most important category. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SCAR-Fc

Hey, Graham! New page patrol-- brand new editor puts up article in one edit. I did a bit of cleanup, but perhaps you can look it over, and welcome the new editor, based on what you find. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, thanks I have done this and the article is on my watchlist. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for A Free Ride

Please archive this nom. I've withdrawn the nom, and planning to request a peer review. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 04:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived the nomination as requested. Best of luck with the Peer Review and consider inviting those who left comments at the FAC to contribute. Graham Colm (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hi there,

Can you clarify something for me - I've just been adding some clarification comments to an FAC just after it was closed - you've helpfully moved some of them to the talk page of the article, which was very nice of you, but I'm a little curious to know if it's still okay to edit the nomination page to clear up any remaining issues? not for an FAC point of view but just from a point of view of clearing up the article that little bit more... Fayedizard (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fayedizard, it is nice to meet you. The answer is no. The FAC is now archived and soon a bot will come along to fully archive the page and add the instruction that no further edits should be made to the page. Any follow-up discussions belong on the article's discussion page. That's why I moved your comments there. Please do not give up your work on the article – it's an important one – but for it to become a Featured Article, all the points raised at it's FAC need to be fully addressed. Graham Colm (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification - very nice for the quick response... :) I'm afraid that it's very unlikely to get to FA under my hand - the comments were more or less to completely rewrite and so it looks like I don't have the sureness of touch required :( - not a problem, it's about time I tried my hand at DYK anyway :) speak soon Fayedizard (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm always here :) Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sun references

Cheers for promoting the article. I did 3 refs before I saw your reply, but think you could be right about their website. I'll leave the rest for now, but keep an eye on it for the next few days and change the others if they don't come back. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Yes, it's FA maintenance from now on. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spam link

Hi there, I recently added a link to a review table for medical students under external links in the article for hepatitis. It was deleted, noting that it is spam. I was hoping you might clarify how? Have you seen the review table?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.82.61 (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See our guideline WP:ELNO, point one, where it reads, "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". There was nothing in the links that could not easily be added directly to the article. Also, the links would not be considered a reliable source according to one of our other guidelines Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Graham Colm (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Air raids on Japan FAC

Hi Graham, Do you think that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Air raids on Japan/archive1 is close to being ready to being closed as successful? It's got three clear-cut supports and all the comments left by editors have been addressed. I'd like to nominate the article to be the today's featured article on 18 April (the 70th anniversary of the Doolittle raid), but it needs to be a FA first! Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be running through the list today and tomorrow. I don't think spotchecks have been done, but given your track record I might forgo them on this occasion or check a few myself. Graham Colm (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Can you tell me why you removed the Done template for the FAC on Ra.One? Please understand, its very difficult to find out what is done and what is not done simply by saying Done. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 14:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, because it says in the FAC instructions, "Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time." You can use Done instead. Graham Colm (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks :) ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 14:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

No problem, I figure you delegates have enough to do without the drudgery of updating all this monthly stuff :) Clay^Clay _Clay 17:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Thanks (again)

Gosh, it makes me sound creepy when you say things like that :P You know, you don't have to thank me for doing menial tasks, but it is quite nice of you anyways :) Clay^Clay _Clay 09:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virus naming

The ICTV is very clear that the first letter of the first (or only) word of the species name of a virus is always capitalized. What's your authority for the opposite? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 18:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is only when referring directly to the species. If one is writing about the virus it is simply, rotavirus, hepatitis B virus, norovirus and so forth. It is only the species name that has the capital. Graham Colm (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I capitalized something other than the species name (and genus name, which was also uncapitalized and unitalicized is several places), that was unintentional. I'm being careful to distinguish between Cytomegalovirus, the genus name, and "the cytomegaloviruses", the English adjective derived from it, as per Equus and equine. Human herpesvirus 5 (HHV5) is an alternative species name of Human cytomegalovirus (HCV), not a generic reference like "the human herpesviruses". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 19:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it can be confusing. This link shows a correct usage: Brian W. J. Mahy; Marc H. V. Van Regenmortel (13 October 2009). Desk Encyclopedia of Human and Medical Virology. Academic Press. p. 135. ISBN 978-0-12-375147-8. Retrieved 9 April 2012.. Put Mocarski in the search box and look at page 137. Graham Colm (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An example of someone not capitalizing (nor italicizing, anywhere) the species name doesn't constitute another authority contradicting the actual virus taxonomic authority's rules on how to style virus taxonymy; it's just an example of someone not following those rules. It might be useful as evidence that the style isn't widely used outside virus journals, though. Bears more investigation. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 17:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viruses have vernacular names as well as formal ones. These vernacular names are widely used in the journals, see for example Tiwari V, Shukla D (2012). "Nonprofessional phagocytosis can facilitate herpesvirus entry into ocular cells". Clinical & Developmental Immunology. 2012: 651691. doi:10.1155/2012/651691. PMC 3312246. PMID 22481969.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link). This paper might also be of interest: [9]. Formal names, italicised and with an initial capital letter refer to the taxonomic classification only, not to the virus. There are several species of rotavirus that are classified as Rotavirus A, Rotavirus B and Rotavirus C (there are others), but when discussing infections caused by rotavirus, we just use "rotavirus". Same with hepatitis B virus, influenza virus, poliovirus and so on. As this is a general encyclopaedia, we should use the familiar, vernacular names. A paragraph on taxonomy giving the formal name should suffice in most cases. Viral taxonomy is an abstract concept that bears little to no relationship to phylogeny. We cannot insist that editors use formal taxonomic typography for viruses when this is used rarely in the literature. Same goes for daffodils; nobody should use Narcissus aureus unless they are discussing taxonomy, either directly or indirectly. Graham Colm (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already know that. I'm not capitalizing or italicizing the vernacular names, as I already (I thought) made clear, only the taxonomic ones. When a virus has two alternative taxonomic names because the taxonomists don't agree on the taxonomy, that doesn't make one of them the vernacular name. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 15:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
- Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
- If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 20:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coagulation

This was a great bunch of edits. I've never taken the time to properly reference that article, despite the straightforward verifiability. One question: now that you have created File:Classical blood coagulation pathway.png, do we still need File:Coagulation full.svg? The only advantage of the latter image is the mention of the physiological inhibitors of coagulation. JFW | T@lk 17:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFW, Thanks. I designed mine to make the pathways a little easier to digest and to make a better slide for teachers. There is more information in the svg version, and some folk prefer svg to png (I can't get a handle on svg software). I deliberately left the protein C and protein S out, because I think it makes the image too confusing. I tried adding the corresponding lab tests such as INR and APTT, but it too became overcrowded. I think we should retain the svg for the time being - I plan to add more sources (textbooks) when I have the time and give the article an overhaul. Perhaps we can revist the need for both images later? PS. Yom HaShoah. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of your Image

Dear Mr Colm, I'm from Kazan State University (Russia). We are going to use your image of a phage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phage.jpg#filelinks on the cover of our book "Microbiology in Definitions and Illustrations" (in Russian). Do you agree this? Our team will be very much obliged to you if you will not be against it. Александр Несмелов (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Привет, спасибо вам большое за ваше сообщение. Уже моя фотография используется в нескольких книгах. Пожалуйста, используйте это для вашей книги тоже, но, пожалуйста, пусть читатели знают, откуда она взялась. (Hi, thank you for the message. My photograph has already been published in several books, please use it for your book too, but please tell your readers where it came from.) Graham Colm (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!!!Александр Несмелов (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles infobox

There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GiantMicrobes

Hallo, I see you think the link to the educational toy version of the Epstein–Barr virus is daft. Educational play is a valid objective in the world of parenting, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be a valid "See also" in a Wikipedia article on a microbe. Could we have the link back again, perhaps with a note "educational toy"? - thanks Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I share your love of the Fibonacci number in nature - currently Patterns is in need of some love and attention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all EBV is not a microbe – it's a virus. Second, those fluffy things bear no relationship at all to the appearance of bacteria or viruses, so I see no educational value. Last, I can't imagine any child in the age group the toys are aimed at that would understand an article on such a complex virus. I see, GIANTmicrobes has been nominated for deletion – quite rightly so in my opinion – so please don't try to give it kudos by adding dubious links on our more academic contributions. Graham Colm (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything That Happens Will Happen Today/archive4

Please take a look As you can see, I've done this three times before and I really want it to pass now. In previous attempts, it didn't because of lack of interest--do you know how I can get anyone else involved to say yay or nay? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I always think that you and your fellow delegates at FAC don't get nearly enough thanks for your work. Permit me, as a recent beneficiary, to say thank you. Nothing would persuade me to do your job and I am vastly grateful to you and your colleagues for undertaking it. Tim riley (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim, I haven't been doing the job for very long, and I imagine a few contributors might think I'm a bot. It's a pleasure to promote such well prepared, beautifully written articles and to feel that I have contributed in a tiny way. Graham Colm (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Tiny" forsooth! Indispensable. More power to your elbow, Graham! (Even if you plough my next FAC). Tim riley (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing up gastroenteritis

I am away the next couple of weeks. Feel free to make improvements as you wish. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Cracker Barrel FAC

Left a question (that is essentially this sentence) for you on how to obtain spotchecks and image review at the Cracker Barrel FAC. Silver seren^C 10:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as a delegate I don't want to set a precedent, but I'll do a spotcheck for you. As for the images, I can't see any issues, apart from the Dolly Parton photograph; it's hard to believe that this was taken in the line of duty. Graham Colm (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ra.One FAC

Could you explain why you archived the FAC despite the fact that the article is undergoing a successful review? Please understand, I will be unable to approach the article for another FAC due to real life commitments later on. Please allow the FAC to run for some more time. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 11:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While Graham will no doubt respond to you as well, I have to say I concur with the closure. I was considering archiving myself after finding two oppose votes a few days ago but left open to see whether any change in reviewers' opinions manifested itself. That didn't happen and a third oppose really decided it. I'm afraid the work to respond to those comments needs to be undertaken away from the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewers have stated that they are ready to change their stance provided they are satisfied. I had sepcifically asked a day in this regard (and I made the request yesterday to Redtigerxyz). Please try to understand. Is it really impossible to keep the FAC open for a few more days? ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 12:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are all busy in real-life. Candidates with no supports, three opposes and are undergoing major restructuring usually benefit from archiving and renomination after at least a few weeks. And long FACS put fresh reviewers off. The pressure of the FAC process can result in rushed edits, which are not an improvement. The reviewer in question did not offer a change in stance but to complete "their assessment". Our job as delegates is to judge when consensus to promote has been reached and at the same time ensure that our shallow pool of reviewers is put to the best use across the project. As an aside, in future please do not strike reviewers comments; this should be left for them to do when they are satisfied with the nominator's responses. Graham Colm (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Push the Button (Sugababes song)

I cannot thank you enough for fixing the dashes in the article! Thank you very much, it was very helpful. Till I Go Home (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article lead sentence

So you're saying that noroviruses are, by definition, the commonest cause of gastroenteritis?

If a new virus evolved that was more common then it would, by definition be called 'norovirus'?

Because according to the policy, you're supposed to define the topic in the first sentence, and you've defined it as:

"Noroviruses are the commonest cause of viral gastroenteritis in humans."Teapeat (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the same structure as I used in rotavirus. Noroviruses are not the commonest cause of gastroenteritis, but they are the commonest cause of viral gastroenteritis. General readers who look up our article will want to know what these viruses do. Viral taxonomy is artificial in that it does not reflect phylogeny, and to begin an article with terms that are understood mainly by virologists, will put readers off. The ICTV classification is not a definition – it is a classification. Can you point me to the policy that says the definition should be in the first sentence? WP:Lead, which is part of WP:MoS says, "(the lead) should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points". Graham Colm (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary "Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition..." and more specifically: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Fixing_bad_articles.2Fstubs Teapeat (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Noroviruses are the commonest cause of viral gastroenteritis in humans" is a good definition. Similar ones are used here "Norovirus, better known as the winter vomiting bug, is the most common stomach bug in the UK, affecting people of all ages." And here [10] "Norovirus is the most common cause of infectious gastroenteritis (diarrhoea and vomiting)". And here "Norovirus is a very contagious virus that can infect anyone". The first definition is from the UK National Health Service, the second is from the UK Health Protection Agency and the third from the US Centers for Disease Control. Graham Colm (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, "Norovirus, better known as the winter vomiting bug, is the most common stomach bug in the UK" is a definition, but not a very good one, but your one doesn't even reach that level. "Norovirus is a very contagious virus that can infect anyone" isn't a definition either; for example, is it saying that any contagious virus that can infect anyone is a norovirus? It's overbroad.Teapeat (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Long-tailed ground roller" FAC

Hi, GrahamColm. I see that you have closed the "Long-tailed Ground Roller" FAC. However I cannot tell if it has passed or failed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Axl, I am sorry to say the article is not ready for promotion to FA status. The reviewers have raised issues that need to be resolved and I have decided to archive the nomination. Candidates for FA status are never "failed"; the nominations are archived, and the nominators are encouraged to refine the article in the light of the comments at FAC. ~~Please do not be discouraged, often candidates fall at the first hurdle.~~ Promoted articles are added to this page by the FA Director or his delegates. We keep a record of archived nominations here. ~~You can renominate the article after a few weeks have passed. In the interim you should work towards resolving the issues raised.~~ Thank you for engaging in our FA process and I look forward to reading more contributions from you. Graham Colm (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misunderstood my reasons for asking. I am one of the reviewers; the nominator made no attempt to address my questions. To say 'Candidates for FA status are never "failed"' sounds like sophistry. Your closing statement could have been a little more transparent. Anyway, thank you for your response. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - it's past my bedtime. FAC delegates are not required to make closing statements. I am going to ignore your comment on sophism. Graham Colm (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

time?

Do we still allow lotsa time for top-to-botton copy editing, or are we more preemptive now? See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Milne Bay/archive1. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how skillful and quick nominators are in responding to reviews. No one wants to see, or have to read, enormous FACs. If there are many issues to resolve, I would prefer to see and "oppose" and referral to Peer Review, but each FAC has to be judged on its and the nominator's own merits. Graham Colm (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epstein-Barr virus

Hey Graham Colm! I'm new to Wikipedia, and for the past week I have been working on improving Epstein-Barr Virus. I saw you made a recent edit, and you seem like a really qualified editor. If you could keep an eye on the article and give me some pointers, I would really appreciate it. Kadoshim (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kadoshim, and a warm welcome. I have watched the improvements that you have made to the article. If you need any help, please do not hesitate to ask me. You might find this tool useful for adding citations. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for !voting

	at my successful RFA
	Thank you, Graham Beards/Archives, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. Keep up the great work at FAC! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DNA nanotechnology back at FAC

I wanted to let you know that DNA nanotechnology is up for a second FAC. Your comments on the first FAC were very helpful, and I've made extensive upgrades to the article since then. I'm hoping that you'll revisit the article for this second FAC. Thanks! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coagulation cascade

Hey! Thanks for contributing your image for the coagulation cascade. I'm just wondering how it improves on the old one? I do like how the three pathways are made clearer with color. I find it discards a lot of the information present in the old one, and the legend makes it look more complicated than it should be. I have a strong bias in favor of the old image for these reasons, but perhaps if you made a few modifications to your image to simplify and make it more complete I would be sold to the idea. What do you think? — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 23:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I talk about the old version, I'm referring to this: File:Coagulation_full.svg — Guillaume Pelletier ~ 23:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guillaume, sorry for the delay in replying, I have been away for a few days. I created the image in response to students' comments who found the earlier one difficult to understand with regard to the pathways in vitro. I agree that information on the modulators has been lost, but I think these would be shown better in a separate image. I included the internal legend for readers who wish to use the image as a projected slide, and I don't think it overs complicates it. What modifications would you like to see? Graham Colm (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salmonella growing on XLD agar.JPG

I see your useful picture with this title,but I am wondering if it is better to have an ID for the yellow colonies, are they E. coli? If so, how about putting in info something like this in Salmonella bacteria (black colonies) and E. coli (yellow colonies) growing on XLD agar User:Polypipe Wrangler 04:13, 8 June 2012

I didn't identify the other bacteria, they are probably colonies of Escherichia coli, but they could be any other member of the Enterobacteriaceae, including salmonellae that have yet to produce any hydrogen sulphide. Graham Colm (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concert in Central Park

hello,

could you please close Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Concert in Central Park/archive1 so I can do the points and then renominate? Thanks.--GoP _T ^C _N 13:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

	featured content
	Thank you for reviewing and promoting articles to featured articles. I hope to live long enough to see the precious one (with a history) on the Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Push the Button (Sugababes song)

[11] Archived why? Nobody commented on it. Till I Go Home ^talk ^stalk 06:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I can see that WP:FAC states that it can be archived if "insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met". The article is now a GA btw. Till I Go Home ^talk 04:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello again. I hate to be a pest, but am I permitted to re-nominate this article for WP:FAC as it was "archived with no (or minimal) feedback"? Till I Go Home ^talk 13:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead. And, although you must not contravene WP:CANVAS, there is no problem with drawing the attention of editors at any relevant projects to the nomination. Graham Colm (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Burges

Absolutely no need to apologise. I'm just delighted that the article, on which so many worked so hard, made FA. Whilst I'm on, could you point me in the direction of the guidance on how an FA makes it to the front page. I'm interested to understand the process. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you need to go to this page WP:TFAR. Graham Colm (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Script

Hi Graham, do you have Ucucha's HarvErrors script installed? I love it, and I think it would be pretty helpful for you when looking at articles that are under review. Keep up the good work at FAC, I love seeing your name on my watchlist :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, thanks for the tip, I have just installed it, and your kind words. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, this may be related to a discussion on my talk. Since you've got the script installed, please see an article that just passed in this state. And see the recent history for clean up I did. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is embarrassing – I've learnt an important lesson today. But I can't understand why these issues were not brought up at the nomination stage. Graham Colm (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you see this as important. I didn't see the nomination until after it closed. I look at what passes, what's dumped on the main page, what is currently called "our best". I have fixed this sort of thing in hundreds of FA, thousands of articles of all sorts. The problem is that these issues are not of much concern to many participants. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you agree with us Graham, and yes you're a good editor and you do good work. It's not just how some get through FAC...the recent TFA Amador Valley High School got to the MAIN PAGE as TFA with 19 dead links in it. This week I came across two FAs with major problems. One has 32 ref errors and one has about 12-15 cite needed tags. I'm sure you'll agree this is also far from ideal.PumpkinSky talk 17:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Unacceptable" might be a better word. I am checking the articles I have promoted since accepting the job, for these errors. Graham Colm (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem using unacceptable here, esp with Amador. The two I allude two were promoted a few years ago, but yea, checking every one would be daunting 'manually', maybe Br'er can throw together a script for it. PumpkinSky talk 17:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The large table on my talk is a separate issue. That's not about harv/sfn, it's about named refs, and their pitfalls. Editors create multiple references that have the same name all the time; it results in the first definition being used for all, which is also "unacceptable". These issues can be highlighted by proper use of the WP:REFTOOLBAR, which every editor is offered (anons, too). No article should pass any review process without these issues being addressed and fixed. I'll look over the rest of the articles on your list, tomorrow. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song) contains two definitions of the named ref "AMGtC" and a "/" invocation:

<ref name=AMGtC>{{cite book|title=All Music Guide to Country: The Experts' Guide to the Best Country Recordings|isbn=0879304758|page=447|editor=Woodstra, Chris, Stephen Thomas Erlewine, Vladimir Bogdanov, and Michael Erlewine |year=1997|publisher=[[Backbeat Books]]|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=7Mo7xm-X1r4C&pg=PA447&dq=%22Red+Steagall%22+%22Here+We+Go+Again%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PGzOT7Vdxp7bBe3n5b8M&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Red%20Steagall%22%20%22Here%20We%20Go%20Again%22&f=false}}</ref>

<ref name=AMGtC>{{cite book|title=The Virgin encyclopedia of country music|isbn=0753502364|page=405|author=Larkin, Colin|year=1998|publisher=[[Virgin Publishing]]|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=wi_aAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Don+Lanier%22+%22Here+We+Go+Again%22&dq=%22Don+Lanier%22+%22Here+We+Go+Again%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pXTOT5uGE-WL2AXY5cXSDA&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBA}}</ref>

<ref name=AMGtC/>

The second definition is simply omitted from the rendered article; they are all collated together using the first definition; see here. The first ref is presumably correct. The second could be fixed by simply renaming it. It is not clear which the "/" invocation should really be linking to without a review of both the article content and the sources. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archived FAC

I saw that you archived the Kappa Kappa Psi FAC. What should my next step be? Another peer review? I figure it's bad form to immediately re-nominate, but I don't want something that I think is FA-quality to fail to be promoted because people don't review it. Sycamore (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC rules are "None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions." I am happy to grant you an exception, but you must make this clear in the nomination statement. By the way, it's OK to draw reviewers' attention to the FAC as long as your request is neutral and does not contravene WP:CAN. Graham Colm (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for that clarification. I'll go ahead and re-nominate and post on the associated WikiProject talk pages to try to gin up some interest. Sycamore (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I appreciate your spotchecking Grand Teton National Park...it is now featured.--MONGO 01:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing the Dengue article

Per here we are working on publishing the Dengue fever article in the journal Open Medicine. Are you okay with your real name being used? The authors will be listed by number of edits which would make you third. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 17:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No cost for publication at this point. The journal is covering it and I have applied for funding from the Gates Foundation for future publications. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 18:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks James, count me in. Graham Colm (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chinese Indonesians/archive2

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chinese Indonesians/archive2. Tks. – Ling.Nut (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, I've left two more examples on the talk page. I think the earlier issue may have been unintentional — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive1

Hi, GrahamColm

A quick question: Why is the discussion closed as "not promoted"? (We have one support and no oppose at this time.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first of all I hope your are feeling better. FAC is about achieving consensus and after nearly six weeks this was not the case. There was no declaration of support and even if there were, this would not have been enough to secure promotion. Graham Colm (talk) 08:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again.

Thanks; I am discharged a while ago (if that's what you mean). Of course, I am feeling very bad right now because I feel all my hard work was in vain and just because I did not know exactly what constitutes a consensus. To be honest I still don't know and I am wondering: Besides writing a great article and addressing all the objections that people can throw at it, what else is needed to make it Featured? Perhaps you would be so kind to tell me? Thanks in advance.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is some useful advice here. Graham Colm (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Look, if you are busy and want me to get out of your hair, please just tell me; I perfectly understand. But please don't do that again. It hurts. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, the FAC was on my list for archiving as well since there was no clear support for promotion after 6 weeks. Graham is trying to be helpful by pointing you to useful advice on the FAC promotion process; the main FAC page also is pretty clear about consensus to promote being required. Generally a minimum of three comprehensive declarations of support is necessary to establish consensus, as well as any other comments or declarations of opposition being satisfactorily addressed. In any case, your work is not in vain; articles can be renominated after being archived, though leave from a delegate is required to renominate in less than two weeks -- that probably would not present an problem in the case of this article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McCartney FAC

Sorry to bother you but I couldn't help but feel as though you were aware of the sabotage that was creeping in at the end of the Macca FAC recently. Well, that has now developed into a full-blown edit-war, complete with disruptive edits, harassment and intimidation of editors. If you can find the time, please weigh-in with your thoughts at the AN/I discussion of this situation here. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention needed

On this FAC, the nominator and a new account are edit-warring about the presence of a comment by the new account. I've already opposed the FAC so don't want to intervene either way. (Cross-posting to Ian's talk). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived the nomination. As you know, in the past heated content disputes at FAC have gone on for months. I have asked the editors to resolve their issues on the article's talk page. Graham Colm (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Kappa Psi FAC

The Kappa Kappa Psi FAC has been open for a month now and has two supports and no opposes; the source review and image review are done and all issues fixed. I solicited reviewers on the Marching Band and Fraternity and Sorority WikiProjects and on the talk pages of a few active WP:FRAT members, but it doesn't seem like there's much interest from any other potential reviewers. Is there anything else that needs to happen before it is promoted or archived? If it's slated to be archived again, I'd like to be notified first so I can try to drum up some interest, but my entirely unbiased opinion is that it's ready for promotion. Sycamore (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's not ready yet. Spotchecks of the sources still need to be done by an independent reviewer. And, two declarations of support aren't quite enough to secure promotion, although this is not a hard-and-fast rule. Graham Colm (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happens now?

Hi, thank you very much for promoting Poppy Meadow. As this is my first FA, what happens now? A bot will update the talk page, will it give me a notification on my talk page, like when a DYK appears on the main page? Also, what can I do know a article is FA class, do I have to nominate the article to appear on the main page, or will it appear on it automatically? Thank you very much! — M.Mario (T/C) 16:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You have to nominate it for the main page. No, it will not appear automatically. TBran dl ey 16:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can nominate it here. A bot run by an extremely helpful editor will update the article's talk page and add the little bronze star. Please do not delete the FAC template on the talk page, as the bot needs to "see" this. Graham Colm (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have nominated it correctly. — M.Mario (T/C) 17:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks OK, but I rarely visit that page :-) Best of luck! Graham Colm (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC permission

Hi Graham, I was wondering if I could get permission to have two FACs open at the same time? My open FAC has three supports at the moment and I'd like to get my next candidate nominated soon if that's alright. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Mark and congratulations on your very successful RfA. Yes, go ahead. I'll look at Clarence this evening when I get home – can you save me a little time and remind when you last had a spotcheck? I've just woken up and my memory hasn't yet :-) Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks, sounds good. My last spotcheck was on June 4, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lynching of Jesse Washington/archive1 by Ian Rose. Thanks for the support at Rfa, I was quite surprised with how well that went--I kept thinking about some of the horror stories I've heard. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Concert

hello,

please withdraw my nomination as I would like to nominate Otis Redding for 9th September. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-Use IP

Don't block a multi-use account in educational use. 212.121.210.45 (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul FAC

You might want to keep your eye on the Istanbul FAC, because there is beginning to be a bit of a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue. It might be wise to have some extra eyes on this. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 17:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I check most FACs each morning, but I hadn't seen how this one had escalated. After one month and no clear consensus for promotion, I have decided to archive the nomination. Graham Colm (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Activated platelets and DVT

I thought you'd be interested to know there is a secondary source discussing platelets (doi:10.1161/ATVBAHA.111.242818). I spotted this source previously and marked it as a potential but now I will look for ways to incorporate it into the pathophysiology section to support the image/meet FA standards. Thanks again. Biosthmors (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have access to a copy of the full article, perhaps you could email me. I'd like to read it. Best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I sent you an email. Biosthmors (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you still want a copy please drop me a note at my talk page to let me know you replied. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption at FAC

Hello Graham, hope all thing are good with you. I am a nominator for Peter Sellers who is currently at FAC doing quite good things. Can I bring to your attention this. Br'er Rabbit, Wikiwatcher1 and a host of other pirates are instigating a discussion about an info box which was subject to an RfC and numerous consensus finding discussions on the Sellers talk page. The agreement was that the info box stay but as it was and to have nothing added or removed. This morning an editor has added some information to it which, quite rightly, was reverted by my co-nominator. The infobox Gestapo have now waded in and are rebuking my co-nom, clearly ignoring discussions which have previously took place.

I have omitted to get involved at this point as, IMO, FAC is far more important. I am going to advice my co-nom to swallow the bitter pill so as not to let these idiots ruin another FAC (such as they did with Ian Fleming) My question is, would such discussions on the talk page scupper the FAC chances? And if it is listed, would the removal of the info box or any of it's information void the articles FA promotion? -- Cassianto^Talk 08:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the Info Box discussion to the nomination's Talk Page. Please see my comment at the FAC. Graham Colm (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much :-) -- Cassianto^Talk 09:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"pirates", "idiots", "infobox Gestapo". No wonder I've commented on their bad faith. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, once again for the current mess at FAC re Sellers. Joseph Grimaldi, I hope, will be a lot less problematic. Can we cap all of the redundent infobox stuff at FAC or is this not allowed? -- Cassianto ^Talk 14:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion seems to have calmed down. I will try to find someone to do the spotcheck and image reviews. Please do not cap any comments, I might move them to the Talk Page later. Graham Colm (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I thought I'd best check about capping first. Glad I did. I requested an image review from J Milburn but Grandoise beat him to it. Images are always very tricky and Sellers is of that era that images are not readily available. Laserbrain is usually very good. I don't know if he is still available. -- Cassianto ^Talk 16:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query re Muckaty Station at FAC

Hi. Notice you did a pass at FAC today and Muckaty, which I nominated, is still there. I'm just seeking any leads on what delegates may still be looking for, in case there's anything I can do. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I took a break for lunch. I haven't finished checking the candidates today. Graham Colm (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should have let you have your sandwich in peace. I've done that page ref request BTW. Thanks! hamiltonstone (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC, archiving

Hi Graham. I left an image review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reginald Heber/archive1 which has now been resolved and I'd like to make it clear for posterity that this is the case. Would it be possible to ignore the " No further edits should be made to this page." notice? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Yes of course. and thanks for the reviews. Graham Colm (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Government Hooker FAC

Can I nominate the article before the two week limit? The only reason I ask this is because the nomination received very little commentary and no consensus was reached. —DAP388 (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can. The instructions allow this for candidates that receive minimal feedback. I hope you generate more interest this time. Best of luck. Graham Colm (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FA Candidate Late Spring

You did not promote the article I have spent a year working on, Late Spring. Of course, you had to do it, because all the reviewers opposed rather than supported it, so I bear you no ill will. But I could use your advice on how to deal with a problem.

One of the reviewers of the article was very nice and helpful, but others were less than helpful. This was particularly the case with one editor. This person apparently has an obsession with the Japanese director Kaneto Shindo, because before I tried to promote the article, he inserted two passages related to Shindo, though Shindo did not direct the film in question. The first passage was a very circumstantial account by Shindo of the daily routine of the director and screenwriter of Late Spring, Yasujiro Ozu and Kogo Noda, respectively, while they were working on the script of the film (including, literally, what they ate for breakfast). I thought this was much too much in an already very long article. The other addition was a simple sentence saying that Late Spring was Shindo's favorite film, a passage that stuck out like a sore thumb, particularly since it came after a passage in which I included a thoughtful quote by the much more prestigious director Akira Kurosawa, praising the film. (One of my peer reviewers also objected to the Shindo sentence for the same reason.) I removed both passages, but the editor in question just kept putting them back, claiming that I did not adequately explain my rationale. Even when I did try to explain, however, the editor rejected my explanation. This editor even reported my behavior to the Administrative Noticeboard as a WP:OWN issue, though it was decided that the issue was just an edit war. I thought that this editor had gone away, but when I tried to promote Late Spring, he came back and opposed my promotion of the article (which he had the naive arrogance to call "excessive").

How does one deal adequately with such unconstructive people? Would appreciate your thoughtful response. Dylanexpert (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have the time to follow this up fully. But this sounds like a typical problem that we encounter with collaborative writing. This page might have useful advice, if mediation is possible solution. But, accusing another editor of "naive arrogance" and of being "unconstructive" is not going to help. Graham Colm (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit problem

Hi Graham. I hope you don't mind, but I'm flummoxed about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Missing My Baby/archive1, where a reviewer is still complaining about prose after two copy edits. I can't see how to improve it further, and privately suspect that one comment arises from not understanding how anaphor resolution functions. Any chance you could take a look? I'm hoping to learn something today :) MTW my question is only about prose -- I agree with the reviewer's comments about OR. Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, commenting would put me in a difficult position with regard to closing the nomination. Although I continue to review articles from time to time, my main role these days is to decide whether consensus has been reached by other reviewers. Graham Colm (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't realise it would put you in that position. I'll ask someone not involved in FAC closures. Simon. --Stfg (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, there is no need to apologise – I'm glad you understand. Graham Colm (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Hey man. I was wondering if I could re-nominate Awake (TV series) for FA, since its original nomination didn't get any consensus to promote, or not promote. So, if I could re-nomiate; that would be great. Hope I can. Cheers, TBran dl ey 14:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have to wait two weeks or until your other FAC is closed, which ever is the longest. Graham Colm (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; great. Thanks. I'm just getting your spot-checks issues fixed right now! TBran dl ey 15:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got all of the spot-check issues fixed now. Thanks, TBran dl ey 15:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since no consensus was reached in the nomination for Awake, to promote or not promote, I was wondering if I could re-nominator sooner than two weeks, as I've seen other articles be re-nominated right after. I hope I don't sound greedy. Anyway, cheers. TBran dl ey 03:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait until two weeks have elapsed. Exceptions are for those FACS that receive little or no feedback. Graham Colm (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KMFDM FAC

Hi there. I saw that you archived this nomination, and I was wondering what your reasoning was. It seems like it was slowly but steadily progressing, and I've seen other nominations languish for longer. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there was no support after 28 days, and the discussions have ground to a halt. I am sorry to disappoint you. Graham Colm (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Railway source check

Hi GrahamColm, Can you please ping me an email? It appears I can't attach documents using the e-mail this userfeature. I will scan these pages tomorrow. Thanks Edgepedia (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you my personal email address. I will complete the spotchecks quickly, you have been patient long enough :-) Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Count of Porto Alegre

Graham, thank you very much for these. I missed them. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lecen, there is still a problem with reference 75, which I can't solve. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's fixed now. Thanks, --Lecen (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just want to say thanks for the help with Otto Graham in FA. It was very much appreciated, especially given my inexperience. --Batard0 (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, all I did was a few spotchecks, and promote it of course :-) Graham Colm (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Graham Beards. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ex parte Crow Dog/archive1.
Message added 01:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I think I have everything corrected, with the exception of the reference style. I left an explanation on the FAC page, but if this is a problem, please let me know. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 01:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

I've noticed that delegates sometimes allow a second FAC to start when the first is nearly through. North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest has three supports, no opposes, no outstanding issues. Would be OK to nom Holkham National Nature Reserve? Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. and I'll take another look at the first to see if it's ready for closing. Graham Colm (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

Thank you ever so much for promoting "Nightswimming" to FA status. Your a wonderful Wikipedian, and deserve a brownie. Have some of my homemade brownies! TBr and ley 00:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homer Simpson, This Is Your Wife/archive1

Hi! Will the nom be failed if a spotcheck isn't done soon, or will it stay on the page until one is done? Regards, Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless another editor beats me to it, I will do the check for you this weekend. Graham Colm (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton

How long should I wait before renominating this? With only one support and no opposes, I don't really know what I would do in the interim. I think the problem was just under-attendance. Savidan 14:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have to wait for two weeks before renominating. This is to keep the list of candidates manageable. As you have noticed, there is a shortage of editors who are willing to review articles, and we have to focus our resources. Best wishes, Graham Colm (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free sound files as a requirement of FAC

I have received two oppose !votes based on a lack of non-free soundfile use. Are these opposes objectionable and should I add sound files even though I am against it? This is my third FAC on a musical subject and I they were never required before. Can you please weigh-in at the Pink Floyd FAC so this can be cleared up. Thanks! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about accelerating FA nomination

Hi GrahamColm, I have a question about Folding@home's FA nomination. Is there anything I can do to accelerate it? I've posted messages on the WikiProjects and notified some of the other top contributors. I don't want the FA nom to linger there for a long time. Granted it's only been up for a few days, but still. You may have noticed that Ucucha didn't have any suggestions, but I thought that you might. Please advise. • Jesse V.^(talk) 23:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you need to be patient. The nomination is only two days old. We are short of reviewers, but the regulars will get to it eventually. Reviews with a detailed rationale carry more weight than one line comments, and I feel that attempts to drum up interest will only encourage the latter. On average, nominations remain on the list for about a month. Graham Colm (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Thanks. • Jesse V.^(talk) 14:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on M-553

Since the last comments on M-553's FAC were from August 20, do I have to wait an additional 14 days to relist it since it sat undiscussed for a month now? There was only Nikkimaria's image review in terms of substantive comments/review, and she declined to return to the review after I addressed both points and pinged her talk page in August. Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 21:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, since there were no substantive reviews, you do not have to wait. I hope you attract more reviews the next time around. Graham Colm (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul, redux, archival

Archival, if I understand correctly, means that it didn't pass, correct? So, can you provide a little insight as to why the nomination was archived? -- tariqabjotu 21:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. -- tariqabjotu 02:38, 21

September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. Please see my answer to Dank's question below. Graham Colm (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Featured Content"

It would be a shame to run a Signpost with no featured articles for the week ... are any of the FACs even close? Would it help if I have a look? - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dank, sorry I have been busy saving lives (and with other things) this week. Graham Colm (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I just wondered if I could help. Twelve today! FAC is running like a well-oiled engine. - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated question: do you have any objection if Istanbul goes right back up? I didn't see anything un-actioned there, and I was hoping to get to it right after I finished my Milhist copyediting ... just missed it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine with me if the nominator agrees. As I would like to see some progress on this, I am prepared to take the unprecedented step of taking into consideration the one full and the other tentative support from the previous FAC. Graham Colm (talk)

Oh! I'm not expressing myself very well ... I meant, was it okay for the nominator to start a new nomination. But if you want to reopen it, that's great, I'll go copyedit it right now. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I ;-) The nominator should re-nominate if in agreement. Graham Colm (talk)

Roger that, I'll ping him. - Dank (push to talk) 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC promotions issue

Hi Graham. I've seen lots of edit warring over infoboxes lately, even while an article was at FAC. As I understand it, infoboxes are optional--no rule for nor against them. Yet people have been getting into heated debates over them. So my question is, as a general rule and specifically in the cases of infoboxes, how would an oppose based solely on such an issue, and infoboxes in particular, be handled? Thanks.PumpkinSky talk 10:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for articles that fall under the remit of established Wiki Projects, such as Medicine (the one I am more familiar with) infoboxes are expected. (Although I question the value of some of the links they contain). So I would expect to see input from members of the relevant project, if there is one. For articles that do not fall under such a remit, I would expect to see consensus built on the article's Talk Page and not at FAC. With regard to an Oppose based solely on the issue of the presence or absence of an infobox and without any other constructive criticism, I would not let this be a barrier to promotion. Graham Colm (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info and tips. PumpkinSky talk 16:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Could you please remove this: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Andranik Ozanian/archive2?--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 03:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC promotion of Corona Australis

Hi Graham, I saw this, but I didn't see any closure on the subject FAC page at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Corona_Australis/archive1 itself. Will the bot pick it up or does it need some archive/note thingy? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Cas, I have fixed this now. Best wishes. Graham Colm (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

I have currently two candidates at FAC, Frog, and Amphibian which I have put forward today. Frog has a co-nominee in Thompsma but he has not in fact edited it for some time. We discussed the matter here. Sasata pointed out here that this was a dubious co-nomination and I responded here. Would you like me to withdraw one or other of these nominations or would you be happy for them both to go ahead? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think it would be for the best if we held back on Amphibian until Sasata has more time to help prepare the article. Frog is going well, and I would like you to concentrate on this FAC for the time being. I have to keep the list of candidates manageable - a long list of candidates either puts potential reviewers off or dilutes our resource of established reviewers. If you agree, I can delete the nomination, rather than archive it, so you can have a fresh start later. Please advise. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Please delete the nomination of Amphibian and I will resubmit it later, hopefully with Sasata's help.

As a matter of interest, what notice if any is taken of UcuchaBot's mention of the wikiCup? Does it indicate that as far as possible, these articles' candidacy is drawn to a conclusion before he end of the round or competition? (The comment has currently been added to Amphibian but not to Frog.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do this for you. With regard to your other question, I am not involved in competition at all. Graham Colm (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Debora Green/archive1

Hi Graham, I see you've archived my FAC, I assume due to lack of reviewers. Since I'm new to FAC, I'd like to make sure I understand where to go from here. The directions at WP:FAC say I must wait two weeks before re-nominating, but that appears to be predicated upon the assumption that there are outstanding issues that caused the candidate to fail. As best I can tell, this isn't the case with Debora Green; the trouble was that not enough people commented on the FAC to form a consensus either way. Could you provide me some information about when I can re-nominate the article (two weeks, because that's the standard? tomorrow, because there are no outstanding issues from the previous FAC? some other time frame?)? I'd also really appreciate any guidance you can offer about how to get people to actually, you know, review it next time around. Thanks! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were unlucky in not receiving substantive reviews, you can renominate at your leisure. I quote, "Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions". But could you hang on until the FAC is formally closed by our friend's bot? And, I would consider it a personal favour if you could delay the re-nomination for a few days, to allow our reviewers time to concentrate their talents on the current list. In the meantime, there is no rule against announcing a FAC to the other editors of the article, previous reviewers, or relevant projects, provided you don't solicit support. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Fluffernutter, I will keep an eye on it and will be happy to support again. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! Graham, no problem with holding off a little bit - I figure if I don't give it at least a few days, people's eyes will skim right over it as "that thing that's always been in the nomination list" when I re-nom it, anyway. Casliber, your support is much appreciated, as were your comments were on the FAC! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Clarke

Hiya. You closed the Clarke FAR yesterday as not attaining enough input for consensus. Dank suggested that I ask you if it would be acceptable to waive the 2 week renomination hold, and put it back up immediately (especially as I am a FAR newbie). The article is nearly there, I think, as it got two very solid reviews at the first FAR. I think it just needs to be at the top of the page again for consensus to emerge (one way or another). If the answer is no, then no worries :) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer you to wait. I appreciate your frustration, but with 40 FACs on the list at the moment, I have to make the best use of our precious FA reviewers' time and I think that keeping the list a manageable size is one way to do this. It would be unfair on the other new FACs if a candidate that has already been on the list for a month diverts reviewers away from their nominations. Perhaps you have the time to review some of the current FACs? This would help a lot. Graham Colm (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! I started a review this morning, and will try to find time for more over the weekend :) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad FAC

Hi! While updating in the FAC page some changes made in the article, I noticed that there is an archiving notice at the bottom of the FAC. The FAC thus far received one oppose. We worked on the oppose points, and the opposing editor did not have a re-look yet. So, I was wondering if the archiving is a bit premature. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't premature. There were no declarations of support, and when I read the article I saw numerous problems with the prose and pointless, and ungrammatical statements, such as "Coffee bars and pubs are also frequented by the youth in the city". Clearly, much work has gone into this contribution, but unfortunately much more is needed. It desperately needs a thorough copy edit by a native speaker of English. This for example, "Since 1956, the Rashtrapati Nilayam located in Hyderabad became the second official residence and business office of the President of India", it should read "In 1956" or "has been" instead of "became". And there are lots of missing finite and definite articles ("a" and "the"). Graham Colm (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing the reason. Yes, I agree with your decision in view of this explanation. There is no doubt that the article needs a copy-edit by a native English speaker, preferably British. Indeed, the article was submitted to the GOCE, and Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs) did copyedit it. Even after that, unfortunately, faults remain.

Anyway, thanks for your evaluation. I hope the primary contributor (and nominator) of the article, Omer123hussain (talk · contribs) returns with the energy to work on it! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC edit warring, FYI

Hi Graham, just an FYI, but an edit war has broken out on Boulonnais horse. I would have full protected it but I see that it's at FAC at the moment. Not sure how you handle that. Just brining this to your attention. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, that an article is a current FAC should not make any difference to the way edit wars are handled. Graham Colm (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the advice, I'll keep that in mind. The edit warring stopped this afternoon anyway. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holkham National Nature Reserve

Hi Graham, this has three supports, no opposes and no outstanding issues, although the most recent editor said on 28 September he/she would add more comments. This seems on track, so can I start another FAC, please? Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the more to come comment, and decided to wait, although I plan to close the FAC this weekend if there are no further reviews - so go ahead with your next nom. Graham.Graham Colm (talk) 10:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kafka images

Can you address the questions about the two images you uploaded at Kafka? Crisco asked a bunch of questions about the images. Thanks.PumpkinSky talk 23:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to viruses

I suggested Introduction to viruses for TFA, one of the rare biology articles that is not a mushroom ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terms of Endearment (The X-Files) FAC

I was shocked by the five supports, but I'm doubly shocked to be accused the way I have been just for pointing out a few problems with this article, which I think is far from being a credible FA. Ah well, just the way things works here I suppose; nobody's allowed to be critical in case anyone gets upset. Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, thank you. I am on my own at the moment (wrt FAC) and I don't have the time to read every FAC from top to bottom. Help from established reviewers and content contributors is much appreciated. If nominators get upset, they need to learn how to respond to constructive criticism. Graham Colm (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been spending much of my time at GAN recently, but if there are any other FACs you'd like me to take a look at then you know where to find me. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have and I know where you live :-) Thanks again. Graham Colm (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole debacle has turned into an embarrassment. Can you fast-track its failure? Bruce Campbell (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the FAC tradition and the rules don't allow it. Let's give the nominator some time to address the issues. Graham Colm (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Campbell is the nominator. Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry v. tired. So this is a withdrawal. This I can do. Graham Colm (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as the initial nominator, I have been lead to believe that the article no longer meets the criteria by a wide margin. The article is being copy-edited right now so I'll renominate it at a further date, and hopefully then more critical commentary will have improved it so it meets the criteria. I can only thank you both for the time. Bruce Campbell (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have (or will have in a minute or two) archived the nomination. You can't renominate it until 14 days have elapsed. Thank you for taking part in our FA process. I hope to see this candidate back soon. Please don't give up. Graham Colm (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't describe the process as a negative experience at all, I definitely learned a lot. Hopefully next time it will live up to even the most severe scrutiny. Bruce Campbell (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham, I think Malleus and I came to this at the same time. Thanks for the shout at FAC talk which has been very quiet lately. I've been busy IRL and working on a few PRs, but will try to get through the lit related FACs this weekend. Sorry to hear that you're the lone delegate at the moment. Happy to pitch in and help with reviewing - it will give me something to do, which I need at the moment. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Graham, just got back home from my travels and was stepping through open FACs yesterday. Tks for holding the fort... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible TFA October 21

Hi Graham, I notice that we don't have a TFA scheduled for October 21, and Introduction to virus seems to have most support at TFAR non-specific (as you've probably realised). I thought it sensible to alert you to the possibility that it may be scheduled for Sunday, just to avoid any problems for you of short notice. If it is selected, I'll try to remember to drop an "eyes open" note at the Doctors' Mess and watchlist it for the day to help out. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have to check how many times I used the word "evolution" ;-) Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 08:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see it! Great introduction to the topic. Thanks also for your thoughts on Kafka. I wish the virus of assuming good faith and amazing grace would infect this project!

ps: did you notice that it was emergancy blurb for a while? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Graham I'd like to know why Franz Kafka was promoted so quickly. I realize it had four supports, but the only content specialist supported on prose only; a second reviewer supported with the caveat that work continue (which frankly I've never seen). More problematic is that against all our current conventions no source review was conducted nor any spotchecks. I've been in a running battle for the past some days to keep tainted material off the main page; and it reminded me of the reasons why we initiated the changes we did at FAC. I'm not posting this as a personal complaint against the primary contributors, but I am a content expert, I've looked at the sources, I've found some troubling issues that I've pointed out, but others remain. I think this is something we need to keep in mind for future promotions. Adding some links about discussions that didn't get to the FAC page. I'm thinking about taking this to FAR based on sourcing, structure, and comprehensiviness. Links are here, here, and here. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Well, the FAR instruction say that editors should "attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article" before considering FAR. Given that PS & GA have demonstrated that they're very willing to work with you, I don't know why you're threatening to go to FAR. I'm also baffled as to why you didn't comment on the FAC if you had such strong reservations about the article? The FAC delegates are dependent upon editors' voicing their views about articles before promoting or archiving their nominations. It seems unfair to Graham to chose not to comment on an FAC and then criticize him for the actions he took on said nomination. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"with the caveat that work continue (which frankly I've never seen)", uh excuse me, Gerda and I alone have made over 20 edits to Kafka since its promotion, so I find this claim totally invalid. Graham, see User_talk:PumpkinSky#Anne_Hutchinson on my talk page, which is mostly about Kafka. As for the copying stuff, MRG proved twice that sites were copying from wiki, not the other way around and that it went back years.PumpkinSky talk 15:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - I based my decision on the helpful peer review and the comments and support at the FA nomination. I did not look up any discussions on the Talk Page. I read the article a few times and having been an aficionado of Kafka since 1968, I saw not obvious failings in facts. The sources seemed compliant with policies, and if I missed any that were questionable, I apologise. Had I not been a lone delegate at the time, the nomination would have had five supports because I would have reclused and added mine. No FA is perfect, but I agreed with Brian Boutlon's comment regarding further improvements not being an obstacle to promotion. I too am surprised that these objections were not raised at the nomination - where they would have been helpful. With regard to "tainted material" on the Main Page, what goes on the Main Page has nothing to do with me, and there are opportunities to object to proposals over there. Since there is a reluctance by reviewers to perform spotchecks, it is up to the delegates to decide if they are warranted. In this case, having checked a few, I decided they were not. The minimal time between an FA promotion and FAR is three to six months, but I see no need to go down this route. Surely these remaining issues can be sorted out on the article's Talk Page, where this discussion belongs. Early on in my tenure as a delegate I was criticised for procrastination with regard to promoting candidates (and rightly so). I see no reason why nominations cannot be closed quickly when there is a clear consensus. If reviewers want to set a minimum time for a candidature, they should discuss this on the FAC Talk Page. Graham Colm (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response. I'm not so worried about the biography section as I am about the critical analysis section. Honestly I posted to the talk because the PR was closed as I was still in the process of making comments there so I felt, perhaps mistakenly, that my comments wouldn't be appreciated. Instead I decided to take a softer approach because I would have opposed or at least leaned oppose. Also I was very busy in real life and once I decided to cross-post to the FAC it had closed. Obviously there was consensus, but I am concerned in regards to spot-checking (not just this FAC but all FACs) given what I've been immersed with the past week. Spot-checks are not something that should be stopped in my view. Anyway, I'll try to beef up the lit. crit. sections a bit myself if the nominators don't mind. Was just wondering. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I too felt thought that the criticism sections were the weaker, but then I realised that my favourite book on the subject was written in 1962 and I decided that my knowledge was not up to scratch. (The nominators were kind enough to include it the bibliography). I completely understand the pressures of real life and I am constantly amazed by what we, as volunteers, are doing here. You are right about spotchecking, but often I feel it's just me who is doing them. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's problematic because the bio that was used as the main source was actually written in 1937, (though that's being changed). More problematic is that in truth I felt somewhat intimidated in posting to this FAC. There's been much bad blood as you well know, and I seem to have been pegged into a certain faction. I don't like to be bullied, particularly not when real life demands are extreme, and so decided to give it a pass. But when the Miss Moppet affair reared its head I decided to say something. My view is that for pages like this at least one content specialist should have a look, Betelguese, I think is a case in point. Anyway, I'll do what I can to help. But I am finding holes that need filling. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, TK, Gerda, and I are actively engaged on Talk:Franz Kafka and still improving this. I feel safe in saying all three of us have no problem steadily plugging away at this to reach the light at the end of the tunnel. PumpkinSky talk 22:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folding@home FAC

GrahamColm, is there anything still lacking on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Folding@home/archive2? The article has significantly improved over the month-long discussion, and I'm wondering if there's anything important left. I notice that the Folding@home article is last WP:FAC's list. Please advise if there's anything more I can do to help here. • Jesse V.^(talk) 03:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Subpages

Hello Graham.

I assumed they would fall under a WikiProject's banner. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 13:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they do. You adding numerous subpages to, among other things archived FAC pages, to which no further edits should be made. These serve no purpose and Project Banners do not belong on them. Graham Colm (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These was nothing in the MOS about not adding them, so mala mia. :P yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 14:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS is about style. There is nothing there that tells you not to drink cyanide either. But this doesn't mean you can do it. Graham Colm (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Medicine

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Arrested Development FAC closure

Is one 'oppose' vote enough to close an FAC? Not really any constructive comments provided. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The constructive comments that were provided had not been fully addressed and the article was a candidate for 25 days. As there have been no comments or further reviews for the past 12 days, I decided to archive the nomination. Graham Colm (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotions

Hi, Graham. I notice that Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2012 has not been updated since 14 October. Is this monthly record now not being used? I run certain statistics on FA promotions (which may one day see the light of day), and this page is an important source. Can you tell me what's happening, or where I should enquire further? Congrats on the great job you're doing, by the way. Brianboulton (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian (isn't it past your bedtime?) - I have never seen that page before! It is not on my list of jobs, which I inherited. I think you should make further enquiries. V. best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes my mum lets me sit up late. I've found the page where this matter needs to be raised, and see that others have already done so. It's a bot problem, evidently. Sorry to have bothered you, and thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where's our star?

Since you're capable, committed, and level-headed (per Malaria), I'm sure you can tell me when Romney gets the star. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the bot is run. I don't do this, and I am always grateful to Gimmetrow for quietly, and often thanklessly, doing this for us. Graham Colm (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (And I hope Maralia won't mind that I misspelled her name). Cheers. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least you did it by accident; my sister did it on purpose :) Maralia (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for fiat

I will not object to requests from nominators, who have an established record of engaging in our FAC process and who respond to reviewers' comments quickly, to relax this rule.

This being the case, I would like to request a special fiat to nominate an article that was stricken by a FAR, but which I have restored. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hawkeye, which article and when was the FAR concluded? Graham Colm (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. It was demoted after a FAR in May 2010. I repaired the article and it passed a GA assessment in July 2012. It was TFA on 21 November 2006, so if restored to FA will not be eligible. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if it is re-promoted, it will not eligible for the Main Page FA, but it is certainly eligible for FAC. Please go ahead with the nomination. And I suggest that in the nomination statement you reiterate this history. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham - You quite possible know this already, but when previously-demoted FARs are re-promoted, they need to be moved to the proper section at WP:Former featured articles and the numbers in the top blurb changed. Sandy used to put a note in red text at the top of FACs for re-promotions, I'm assuming just to remind herself that the closing procedure had an added step, but you all might have a different procedure now. I wasn't sure where to post this note - like I said, I just wanted to make sure all of the delegates were aware of this little detail when closing articles like the one just nominated by Hawkeye. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dana, I didn't know this, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Premature FAC

Hello! I was haunting my old stomping grounds and came across this untranscluded, clearly premature FAC nom. I know how we used to handle such things (remove FAC template on article talk, comment on article talk, advise the user on his/her talk page) but I've been away for 2 years and perhaps things have changed. Let me know if that's still the proper process (I'll see a response here), and if so, I'll take care of it. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and a very, very warm welcome on your return. I have missed you. I'm sorry I have not replied sooner, but I have been busy today. I look forward to seeing your contributions, whatever they may be. Yes, please take care of this nom as discussed. The only change is that I might delete the nomination page if no substantial comments are added, to give editors a fresh start if it is ever renominated in the future. My best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You always were a kind one, Graham; thank you. It's strange and awkward returning to an old haunt after an absence, as people have come and gone, and the ones you remember are not always the ones who remember you. I have been back around for a few weeks, reviewing a couple FACs, trying to catch up on policy/procedure changes, puttering around a small stable of pet articles, and hoping to reconnect with old friends. Congrats on being made a FAC delegate—couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, and you've certainly proven yourself to be capable, committed, and more level-headed than most.

I will handle that nom as advised. Take care, and you'll definitely be seeing me around. Maralia (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of the deletion—I was going to ask you to do it, but saw that you already have. Maralia (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found two more incomplete/untranscluded noms today. The articles were in better shape than average, so I wouldn't call them premature noms, but neither nominator was a significant contributor. I removed the FAC templates and notified them both (here and here). Would you take care of this nom page? The other nom had not progressed to creating the FAC. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing article at Wikipedia:Featured articles

Hi Graham. I noticed that you promoted a bunch of articles recently, including White-eyed River Martin. That article has not yet been placed in WP:FA, and I don't want a situation where the count is off. It's not my place to list anything there, so would you mind taking a look at this, at your leisure? Thanks. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting my mistake. I'll have to start making neater notes. Best wishes. Graham Colm (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your previous assistance. DVT is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Deep vein thrombosis/archive3 if you would like to comment in preparation for FAC. Also, I'd like to ask you this: do you suggest I go ahead and act on the advice that "The full title of the journal must be given [not] N Engl J Med ... and so on", "If the author's first name is unknown then the initials should have a . after them", and "Page ranges should have the numbers in full"? I think there is a chance these suggestions are unnecessary, but I don't know as I've never prepped for FAC. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my delay in replying. These are trivial points, which are not part of the FA criteria. As long as the referencing style is consistent, I don't foresee any major issues. Same goes for DOIs, they will not be available for some references and are only given for the convenience of readers in any case. If you are lucky, Nikkimaria will check the references for you when the article is nominated. If have left a short comment on the PR page, which supports Axl's response to the reviewer. Graham Colm (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My apologies for letting it slip my mind to tell you Axl had already commented on these points. Best wishes, and thanks again. Biosthmors (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn FAC

The nominator of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dromedary/archive1 asked me today to withdraw the nomination. I updated the FAC page with {{FACClosed}} and noted the withdrawal; removed it from WP:FAC and added it to the November archive; and reminded the nominator to leave {{FAC}} on the talk page. Let me know if I've missed anything, or if you'd prefer I didn't handle such things anymore. Maralia (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for taking care of this, and I appreciate your help, now and in the future. Best, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been so long

Hi Graham. How are you? I haven't been around for ages. And I missed being here. I know that you are very very very busy but still I need a favor from you. Could you please help me polish the prose a bit here? It failed at the FAC the first time. Some of my friends worked on it a little more. Could you please add your "magical touch" for a better finish? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jivesh, nice to see your return to the fold. I can't promise, but I will try to find the time to take a look at the article this weekend. This depends on how much FAC work is needed. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Graham. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over FA status Microsoft Security Essentials

I have opened a dispute over the decision to award this article FA status which you were to some extent involved. You may wish to comment on the case here. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR

Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...

the subject line "JSTOR"
your English Wikipedia username
your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking permission to lodge a second FAC

Hi Graham, My FAC for Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy appears to be getting close to being ready to close. Would it be OK if I also opened a nomination for McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in Australian service? The article is also a GA and has been assessed as A class. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(stalking) Hi Nick, might be wrong time of day for Graham on the other side of the world, but I don't think he'd have any objection, nor do I -- would expect to be closing the Normandy FAC this weekend if Graham doesn't beat me to it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks Ian. Nick-D (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian for responding on my behalf, it was the wrong time of night and I have been v. busy in real life today. I fully agree to the opening of Nick's next nomination. Graham Colm (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2012 Guinea-Bissau coup d'état/archive1

Got a mess here; I think the nom is attempting to withdraw as they tagged the page as a CSD (which I removed) and pulled it off the FAC page. --Rs chen 7754 20:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rschen, yes I saw the removal of the nomination from the FAc list and have been considering the best course of action. Thanks for removing the CSD tag, which I had decided to go for. I'll archive the nomination as withdrawn because I think the discussion should be preserved. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Hi mate, you beat me to archiving the Timberlake article, so are you on a roll now? I ask because I was eyeing a couple of others for closure but don't want to step on your toes... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to withdraw the nomination for "Home (The X-Files)" please. I don't believe it is ready. Bruce Campbell (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can take care of that for you. Be sure to leave the {{FAC}} template on the article talk page until the bot comes through to finish archiving it. Maralia (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/She Has a Name/archive1 (withdraw?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done as well. Maralia (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parasitology

Hi Graham, I recently asked WikiProject Medicine if there were any parasitology experts around, and SandyGeorgia gave me your name. Would you be willing to look over an article I've been working on for accuracy? If you can't, I totally understand - thank you anyways. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keilana, which article? Graham Colm (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Bishop (biologist); it's currently at FAC and a reviewer asked if I could find a parasitology person. Thanks again! :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sesame Street research

Hey Graham, I noticed you closed this article without promoting it, and wondered why. I thought it was pretty close to passing. Was it because it didn't get enough support? Or did I miss addressing any feedback? Let me know so I can fix whatever was wrong with it and resubmit it. Thanks for your hard work as FAC delegate; I know it can often be a thankless job, and there are scores of forces working against the goal of high-quality articles. I try to do my part in get the articles I submit for FAC to be as ready as I can get them, so I'd appreciate the feedback to how I can do that to make everyone's life easier. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Christine, sorry for the delay in replying to you, I had to go into work today to cover an emergency. Unfortunately after a month at FAC, there were not enough reviews to establish whether the FA criteria have been met. We need to see unqualified declarations of support, preferably from established reviewers, but there were none. Thanks for you very kind words, and I look forward to seeing you back at FAC in the future. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean that if not enough reviewers bother to support an FAC, it fails? Might it be possible that there's little feedback because reviewers don't see any problems? You know the old saying, "Silence is assent." I just like an explanation of your policy, if you wouldn't mind. And no worries, you will see me again at FAC; I'm invested in improving the articles I work on and FAC is the best process to accomplish it, and ensuring they get the credit they deserve. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sixth Extinction II" FAR

Hello, thank you for allowing me to reopen the FAR earlier than two weeks. I was just wondering when a good time to do that would be? Should I wait awhile, or just start the review once again? It seems that the prose of the article has been improved (according to the various editors), so there really isn't any "work" than needs to be do as of right now. Thank you.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can renominate as soon as you want to, but please mention that you have had a delegate's permission to do so in your nomination statement. You might want to discuss with the past reviewers of the article the problems caused by premature support, in that this can make it more difficult, rather than easier, to achieve promotion to FA. Thank you for your polite response to what must have been a disappointment. It is much appreciated. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to get it up to par, but I still think it needs some work. Is there anyway I can withdraw my nomination, and then renominate it later after a few weeks when I feel it is truly better (and has been combed over)?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will withdraw it for you and I hope you are successful in getting help with the copyediting. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arsène Wenger

Hello Graham, any chance of withdrawing my nomination? Given the way it has panned out, I guess it needs more work, cheers. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll do this for you now. Best wishes. Graham Colm (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing the rounds

Hi mate, was just walking through and about to promote a few -- are you in the middle of things or paused for breath after Ice? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I'm about to take a lunch break - please carry on. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, hope lunch was agreeable, I'm going to hit the sack here... Promoted three older noms and left comments on others, there may well be newer ones about ready (including, possibly, the F-4 Phantom in RAAF service one that I recused from as a reviewer). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An FA review you are doing!

this is just a related message, you can see can see or just ignore.. User_talk:Shrikanthv#Notice.21_.28For_undiscussed_approaches.29. --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tito, since you are the principal contributor, I am prepared to close the nomination if you think it is not ready. Graham Colm (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a collaborative effort so slip ups happen. Just give us some time to discuss this. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no rush. Best wishes. Graham Colm (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 15:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new message here. Actually there is a bit rush, since though it might be difficult but the idea was to target 12 January FA date which is the birth anniversary of Vivekananda. It is a very big event and even American Parliament of the World Religions specially commemorates this event. --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mypage

Hi Graham! I have pretty much finished that CMML page that I was writing, but I never got chance to show it for consultant's advice to make sure I hadn't dropped any clangers. Is there any chance you would be able to show it to any of the consultants please. Thanks Simon Caulton (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simon, it was nice to see you today and hear a little about your PhD. I'm not in the lab tommorow, but if I can nail down VT next week (or later), I will get a review for us. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Link for any Talk Page watchers here. Graham)

PS. We might need the services of a cryptanalysist to decipher his handwriting :-) G.

That's great thanks Graham. Hopefully I'll have something exciting to tell you next time, if I can get anything to work. Simon Caulton (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

200

I suspect you Russian may be insufficient, but here's a quote from the ref you deleted: "А мессия видит всё, что сокрыто от глаз простых смертных. Так и докатился он до своего "шедевра" - антисемитской энциклопедии "200 лет вместе". Второй том этого труда и выход на экраны 10-серийной эпопеи "В круге первом" разделяют всего три года, в связи с чем вызывала интерес "еврейская тема", на которую я при прочтении романа сорок лет назад просто не обратил внимания. Всё же был "немножко" моложе, "не корысти ради" состоял в комсомоле, как и подавляющее большинство людей того времени. Могу подтвердить - автор сценария фильма (Солженицын) остался верен тексту романа: никакого намёка на антисемитизм в фильме нет. Это тем более странно, что почти одновременно с "Кругом" в 1965 и 1968 годах Александр Солженицын работал над темой "Евреи в СССР и будущей России". Как показал С. Резник в своём капитальном анализе еврейской темы в творчестве Солженицына, те старые наброски были не чем иным, как "Вводом в тему" двухтомника "200 лет вместе", увидевшем свет уже в новом веке, в условиях реанимации культа личности Сталина. Безусловно, эта книга пришлась бы ко двору и в последние годы жизни вождя, во времена, скажем, борьбы с космополитами, или "Дела врачей". К сожалению автора, он не смог тогда выразить свои чувства по причине вполне банальной: был арестован гэбистами в феврале 1945 года из-за несдержанности: допустил вольности в адрес вождя в переписке с другом; забыл, что органы блюдут безопасность даже накануне победы. As you can see Ostrovsky refers to 200 as an "antisemitic encyclopedia". Gimpelevich says specifically "[200] has evoked strong reactions from many scholars, who doubt in particular his factual data and ideological approach to the history of Russian Jews and their history in the Russian and Soviet Empires". --Galassi (talk) 03:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation belongs on the article's Talk Page, not here. Having said that, one obscure critic's description of the book as "антисемитской энциклопедии "200 лет вместе" (antisemitic encyclopedia "200 years together") in a throwaway line in an article about another work (The First Circle) does not support the statement in the article which reads "The book stirred controversy and is viewed by many historians as unreliable in both factual data and ideological approach, as well as antisemitic". The way "antisemitic" is tagged onto the end of the sentence gives the reader the impression that many historians consider the work antisemitic, which is not the case. The reference I deleted [12] (and replaced by one from internationally respected Sozhenitsyn scholars) is hardly a reliable source - more of a blog.Graham Colm (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the _russophone_ scholarly opinion is unequivocally as I described it. The book is so unpalatable that Camb.Uni.Press won't touch it with 10' pole. There is no English translation (there is at least one actually! in ms.), so you would have to go to the Russian sources to get the picture.--Galassi (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks. This has nothing to do with unpalatability, Sozhenitsyn's books have not been commercially successful since the early 1970s. The article is among the most biased ones we have, and this has been commented on both on WP and elsewhere. A balanced review, which is critical of Solzhenitsyn can be found here.[13] Graham Colm (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer if you'd avoid insults.--Galassi (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]