User talk:Graham Beards

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them COVID-19, broadly construed He should not be given alerts for those areas.

Archives

2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lancefield_grouping&oldid=1210678286 : System for classifying bacteria

1. Are Streptococcus bacteria or not?
2. Wikipedia:Short_description#SDJARGON: avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject

--Christopher Ursich (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, streptococci are bacteria but "System for classifying bacteria" sounds like Lancefield Grouping is used for all bacterial genera. But it's not. How about "System for classifying streptococci bacteria"?Graham Beards (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
• Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news

• The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

• The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

---

Thanks for all your awesome actions, not least the undoing of Fabrickator's atrocious reversion of my edit. I've posted here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please ban Fabrickator from interacting with me. Polar Apposite (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About 2 weeks ago, I proposed to move the page Nudivirus to Nudiviridae (see Talk:Nudivirus), but there has been only one reaction so far. Could you help as a virologist? Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented there. Graham Beards (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Bernhard Zelazny (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

---

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This pertains to the Diagnosis section of the Campylobacter jejuni article. Upon collection, it was noted that stool samples are typically grown at 42 degrees Celsius with 5% - 10% oxygen. It is important to note that the oxygen levels for stool cultures have a more comprehensive range than the actual environment in which Campylobacter jejuni grows. This is because it is a diagnostic tool to confirm Campylobacter jejuni and other microbes. Regarding the growth conditions for Campylobacter jejuni, it is a thermophile and microaerophile. I sincerely appreciate the edits and attention you have given to the page. Your input has been constructive. Nathaniel Yankey (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will copy and paste this comment on the article's Talk Page. It doesn't really belong here. Graham Beards (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you're doing well and thank you for your feedback on our paper. I noticed you disregard the zoonotic portion on our page, therefore, I would like to further elaborate. More research and scientific studies are coming out suggesting the ancestor of B. pertussis is B. bronchiseptica. With further research and cases coming out of Bordetellae infections, I intended to emphasis the importance of having veterinary and human fields interact and encourage research of B. pertussis zoonotic potential. There were also statistics and research in the zoonotic potential category that wasn't pertaining to B. bronchiseptica. Averihardwick02 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this really belongs on the article's Talk Page, and not here. Having said that, I deleted the paragraph because it is out of place in an encyclopedia article on Bordetella pertussis. The research is speculative and unconfirmed and as far as I can tell, comes from just one research paper. The article is also at risk conflating the disease, whooping cough, with the bacterium. The inclusion of this speculation does not help in this regard. In any case, full marks for questioning me on this. Graham Beards (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

Technical news

• Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

---

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Graham Beards! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, seventeen years ago! Graham Beards (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Graham Beards! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! LOLHWAT (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been prepping the myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome article for a FAC run. I've had a great pre-FAC review already from from Ajpolino, but would like 1 or 2 more, as I'm quite new to all this medical editing. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate some feedback, given your expertise as a virologist :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Femke, I'll take a look over the weekend. Best regards, Graham Beards (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you reverted my change on the platelet page. While I agree that platelet satellitism is not only relatively but extremely rare, I believe it's still a valuable option for visualizing the structure and function of platelets – they're centered and accumulated in one place. I'm open to hearing your rationale for keeping the current image, but from what I see, it has lower resolution and a wider distribution, which might make it difficult for uninformed people to determine the actual position of the platelets. –Tobias (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does. It's made quite clear in the legend. And the one you added is full of staining artefacts that almost look like malarial parasites to the undedicated uneducated eye.Graham Beards (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new image also had a clear legend. However, how many undedicated people do you know who would willingly scan a micrograph for malarial parasites? It seems like a bit of a stretch. –Tobias (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the staining artefacts? The slide you added shows an effect only seen in an old EDTA blood sample. It does not occur in vivo at all and it is a bad Lead image. Graham Beards (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't consider them that disturbing, but I understand if you do. It would be the best to just have a good quality 3D-rendering like in neutrophil, eosinophil and basophil, but it seems like Commons is still lacking such an image. –Tobias (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
• The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous

• WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Brianga
• De728631
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Hyacinth (deceased)
• ProveIt
• The Night Watch

Technical news

• Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

Miscellaneous

• The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

---

Hi, you reverted my edit on the menstrual cycle page stating that my revision was "not in the source". Can you elaborate what exactly I changed wasn't in the source? Ferid9 (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is the source I quoted Ferid9 (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not in the cited source, "According to one theory, It evolved in some placental mammals because it confers advantages in that it allows females to detect the genetic abnormalities in the embryo and reject it, thus allowing the mother to limit her investment in bad embryos." Graham Beards (talk) 10:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

İt literally is, i copy pasted 2 sentences and fused them with minor tweaks Ferid9 (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section

WHY DID SPONTANEOUS DECIDUALIZATION EVOLVE?

-Maternal-fetal conflict drives the evolution of uterine tissues Ferid9 (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have looked. Are you are aware of our policies on copyright and close-paraphrasing? Graham Beards (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, is my revision a copyvio? İf so, how should İ change it? Ferid9 (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. You need to rewrite it entirely in your own words and propose the change on the article's Talk Page, as is our custom with Featured Articles. Graham Beards (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

İ will work on it later, thanks for informing me Ferid9 (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Graham Beards (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Technical news

• Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
• Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

---

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
• Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
• The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

Miscellaneous

• Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

---

It's a sad thing that WP can call for bold editing from its diminishing pool of very experienced editors, then instinctively quibble (without careful consideration of the value added) when constructive bold edits are made.

The fact of the matter is that the Virgo article that you came onto is poor, pedagogically, in terms of presentation (using jargon, putting the more specific before the general, answering critical reader questions late or not at all, or admixing them in so much detail as to lose the reader. Moreover, structurally, the article is a mess, esp. insofar as one does not really have a sense of what Virgo is, unless willing to read through all the organisational description (about host coutries and such), down to the very long and complex multi-subsection specialist section that describes the instrument and its function.

Bottom line, the article needs both a revision of its lead, and a structure that includes a description of the instrument design and function, brief and much earlier. This I gave you—a good starting point for further editing, as overwriting and long quotes can be shortened—and you decided to throw a large baby out with a little bathwater. No time for back and forths like this, life is too short. But note, none of our students will read the article. They will read, instead, the long quote at the organizational site, and other descriptions we can find them. Virgo article is yours. Signed, some educators, and former registered editors here (who are revisiting their earlier reasons for leaving). 98.193.42.97 (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I invited you to discuss your proposed changes on the article's Talk Page. We have a guideline called Bold-Revert-Discuss which is helpful in this instance. I didn't throw the baby out, your edits are preserved in the article's history, where they can be retrieved, in part or whole. Your edits did not show evidence of your being "very experienced", and it was clear to me that you would need help. If you have "no time for back and forths like this", perhaps Wikipedia is not for you. We produce and refine our articles by collaborative writing. Graham Beards (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mistake differences in editorial approach for inexperience. [At the time of my retirement (after many years here), I alone had >10K registered edits, tens of created pages, and unique edits on approaching 2K pages.] We are all physical scientists, retired from academia, now driving related startup work, and editing in volunteer time in disadvantaged STEM trainee contexts.

The edits moved the article in a needed direction. We will not waste time on an article where an awareness of the problem is not shared, and respect for time spent is not evident. (It is not humbly collaborative to fully remove an hour of our-end collaborative effort on an impulse, especially as a microbiologist acting at a physical science article.) Our edit summaries were thoroughly explanatory so as to preclude the need for further discussion in a new Talk section; we believe the vectors we suggest for new content directions for the article are clear (and of value).

Moreover, the article as it originally stood was not useful to our charges, and will remain so, and without us, unless you put time into reclaiming the baby—a developmental reference, and biological, implying something not yet mature, but having great potential—that did indeed go out (of useful sight) with your rapid, cursory response. Put something constructive and derivative back, or leave it in bad shape. If the former, we will be back in the game; if the latter, it's all yours. Your call. 98.193.42.97 (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, you have chosen not to engage on the Talk Page. But of greater concern is that you are a group of anonymous people rather that single voice, which goes against our ethos. If you wish to disengage, feel free. We are not responsive to demands. Graham Beards (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been pinged on my talk page by the IP user in my quality of having written most of the Virgo interferometer article. I do welcome the initiative in contacting me, however I would mostly agree with Graham here. I am happy that this article is of interest to people, and welcome any criticism on the article; it is by no means perfect, and can surely be improved. However, I am not convinced that the edits made by @98.193.42.97, while they are rightfully motivated, are a good solution to the article's problems. As Graham pointed out, being bold is not a immunity token; the revert is not an issue as far as I am concerned.

A section called "Abstract on instrument design and function" would be very uncharacteristic of a Wikipedia article; if you feel that the nature of Virgo is unclear, this should go in the lead. I feel that the first paragraph conveys most of the relevant aspects of Virgo, with more details being provided in the first section of the Instrument section. The vocabulary in those sections do not seem much more complicated than what is proposed. Overall, the proposed changes feel like a tutorial to Virgo, which this article does not aim to be. I would like to stress that my aim in writing this article was to provide a thorough, yet accessible, reference on the Virgo interferometer, which is what I believe Wikipedia should be for. I made a point to address every part of the experiment, using the technical vocabulary if necessary but trying to provide as many hyperlinks and reference as possible. Again, my work is far from perfect, but I do not think that the proposed modifications are furthering that objective.

I am also a bit worried by the attitude of the IP user. The Wikipedia article is *not* meant to be an introductory article to Virgo; I feel like it could play that role if you wish for your students to get a bird-eye view of the Virgo experiment, but it is not meant for a pedagogical support; by its nature, it is supposed to be used by anyone and not specifically by students. If you wish to have an introduction for a specific public, it is to be found elsewhere, or written by yourself. I strongly encourage you to contact the Outreach group of Virgo for such things (I can provide a contact for this or act as a liaison if you wish). Finally, I would like to point out some non-cooperative behavior: as it was pointed out, the revert should have been discussed on the Talk page, rather than coming here to make some accusations. The intended goal for the page also seems very personal, rather than being dedicated to upholding Wikipedia standards. Finally, the ping you made to me mentions "work reverted by a microbiologist": this feels like a personal attack on Graham, who is a very experienced contributor as far as I am aware of, and would be well-versed on this kind of edits which do not cover the most technical parts of the article.

To conclude, most of this message seems negative, but I do not wish for this to end up as nothing. I am happy with making the article more accessible to the general public and avoid jargon if possible. However, either I have gone terribly wrong on the article, either your expectations are misguided. I would be a bit worried about advanced physics students being unable to read through the article; while it does have technical bits, I do not think that reading it should be a challenge for any physics-savvy person. I had friends with some higher education (not specifically on this domain or physics in general) review this, and none of them reported any major understanding issues; this is not a perfect test, but I am surprised to hear that you feel that the article is "a mess" or that it is "poor" on a pedagogical level. In any case, I welcome any further input on either part, as long as it is made in a collaborative manner. Thuiop (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]