User talk:Graham Beards

one of my diagrams

Elsevier access

Hello, Graham Beards. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris Troutman (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I have responded. I'm very pleased. Graham Beards (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Second article

Gee, short talk page here! With California Diamond Jubilee half dollar having, I think, touched all the bases, I'd like to go ahead and nominate Horace Greeley at FAC. I'm going away on the 26th, and I'd like as much as possible to have the FAC occur while I'm home for access to sources, etc. Many thanks for your consideration.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I archive it often :-) Go ahead. I'm too busy to do FAC tonight, but I will look at you current nom tomorrow. Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Pancreatic cancer

Hello Graham :)

I'm glad to see the page being promoted to FA. While trying to collaborate with the work with CRUK – a project I very much support – I've been contributing to the page as a logged-out IP editor fairly regularly (under four or five addresses), at least since it was put up for PR in mid-November. However, I still haven't completed checking through the article to my own satisfaction. I have particular concerns (touched on here) about the way the opening paragraphs of the Diagnosis section are currently presented, which seems to me to be confusing. In practice, I have found it hard to do certain tasks in the absence of consensus from the nominator – even though I most certainly share his intentions regarding accessibility, especially for people close to patients, a matter discussed in an interesting panel discussion at Wikimania.

Fwiw, my own view is that an FA page should be both readable from start-to-finish, and readily consultable section-by-section. I know Wiki CRUK John has put a lot of thought and effort into trying to provide a genuinely communicative 'through-written' narrative. I think many parts work rather well, but that certain passages (in particular, at the start of ==Diagnosis==) are still problematic.

If some sort of consensus can be reached I'd be glad to continue editing the page (per your closing note) until it's in a condition where I can feel generally more comfortable with it.

A small personal note: I'd also like to clarify that I find the confrontational nature of much dialogue that so often tends to occur among hard-working gf editors, at FAC and elsewhere, one of the least attractive aspects of contributing to Wikipedia.

86.134.203.235 (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC) ex-86.181.67.166, 109.158.8.201, 86.164.164.29, 109.157.83.50, and 86.128.169.211, etc

Hi, it would be best to continue your discussions on the article's Talk Page, not on the FAC page, which will be archived by a bot shortly. Best wishes, and thank you for taking the time to post your message here and your contributions to the FAC. I agree with you about the "least attractive aspects" but I don't think there is a solution. Collaborative writing, particularly on important subjects, can be tricky. Graham Beards (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to thank you for your kind words, which I very much appreciate (perhaps more than you can imagine). Best, 86.134.203.235 (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

...but I have to say that, instead of celebrating for this I find myself left feeling deeply hurt irl for the way the way I have apparently been excluded from the loop. As one of the main contributors (I think) to the page, I feel the need to say that I don't think it was ready yet. 86.134.203.235 (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Elsevier

Hi. I wanted to update you on the status of your Elsevier account. I sent the first list to Elsevier on 12 January. Elsevier reports that they will be e-mailing applicants next week with an access code, which will start your use of the resource. I appreciate your patience with this process. Feel free to contact me with any feedback or questions you have about Elsevier access. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Graham Beards (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antimicrobial resistance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trypanosome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia clinical review

I clicked on your PubMed profile, which led me to the ebola article. So you managed to turn a Wikipedia FA into a real peer-viewed article? Really? That is one of the coolest things I've ever come across. (Or missed, since it happened a while back.) Is this the only case, or have there been more of these? (And is was this typical of what Open Medicine publishes, or was this something exceptional for them?) Guettarda (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

(I suppose I could have looked up the journal before I made the last comment. Guettarda (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC))

Hi, nice to meet you. I presume you mean the dengue article. I can't take much credit for that; James did all the hard work getting in through peer-review and publication. Most of my other publications are independent of Wikipedia (and indeed predate WP by several decades). Graham Beards (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Having had dengue, you'd think I wouldn't make that mistake :) Guettarda (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it time to replace List of viruses?

A new user has developed an alternate list of viruses (he/she has commented on WP:VIRUS), except this person's list is ordered by taxonomy and not alphabetically. If the "new" list adheres strictly to ICTV-approved classification, would it be better? I certainly wouldn't want there to be two articles for this, considering the sheer number of viruses would make updating both a serious chore. Also, would the List of virus families and List of genera of viruses articles become redundant if the "new" list is adopted? What are your thoughts? ComfyKem (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have much time to spare at the moment to reply fully. The new user's list is based on the Baltimore classification. I have never liked our current List of viruses, which is full of red links, easily vandalized and could eventually run to hundreds of pages. A list more like the one on the ICTV website [1] would be more useful. The new user's list is a good start. Graham Beards (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bosnia FAC

I've dropped the nominator a line with some advice, btw. Bencherlite^Talk 14:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm at work at the moment so my attention is transitory. I was planning to leave a message. Graham Beards (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Burges

Re your very general comment: we are supposed not to speak in general, only specifically for the article in question. (Not that it would show in any given discussion ;) ) - In case you didn't look at the article history: that article had the unspeakable feature which I am supposed not to mention from July 2013 until a few days ago, including TFA date. The question is if by that history, it became something like a community good. - I would think so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)