User talk:Graham Beards/Archive1

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our

Damned Robot!--

^Talk 21:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for uploading

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

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

ah, Graham;[1] you moved out of the newbie category lickity split, but what about all my mentoring and sample edits on MOS cleanup? :-) MEDMOS is flexible on section arrangement, although History at the end is preferable based on many discussions and long-standing consensus at

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

]

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

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

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

Well,

Herpes zoster to Template:MCOTWannounce‎. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Colin,
  ^Talk 20:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• How to be diplomatic? Overall, the article is not improving. The prose is becoming poor compared to when I first read the article, and I might be partly guilty of this. Of course there have been some improvements and I agree with Colin on many issues, but now we seem to be arguing about established viral terminology and facts (that my mother knew). I thought citations were only required for contentious statements, (although I agree that medical articles might require more). I think the FAC will not succeed because consensus will not be reached in time. The baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. Now we seem to be trying to fix stub articles. What's going on? We are running out of time. Certainly, Una gets confused as she did here with Herpes zoster and the virus VZV and similar thing happened with my
  ^Talk 22:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • FAC does not have a time limit; patience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Sandy, I was very naive indeed at first. If I had known then just how high the standards are here I probably would have not made the leap. I'm glad I did. I have published over 40 odd papers in peer reviewed journals and none of them got anywhere near the grilling that

^Talk 11:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Colin,

As always, great to hear from you. I met

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

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

He nicked it from me!

^Talk 23:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Some other (non-rude) person I met.[reply

]

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

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

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

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

I have granted your request for

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

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

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

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

Have a look at my edit. If you don't like it feel free to revert. I think you (reluctantly) have to mention Watson and Crick. I have given the reference to the Nature paper.--

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

I've just added my support for the article at the FAC. Good luck to you!--

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

Yes! There wasn't really a problem, but I could see someone objecting. :-)

^Talk 18:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

• Rotaviral enteritis
• Rotavirus

I've used the ICD10 name "rotaviral enteritis" rather than "rotavirus enteritis" since the latter is harder to say and just causes confusion in the text when also saying "rotavirus". Both are substantial articles in the own right. The new "rotavirus" article is currently less well organised but has room to expand, taking

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

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

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

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

Sorry guys, my ISP has been, (and still is at home), out of action. Colin, I appreciate all the work, but I don't like the split of the article at all. I think we'll just end up with two B class articles and somone will put a merge template on them in no time at all. I know the virology is difficult for some, but this is no reason to separate it. I find

^Talk 09:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Thanks D011.10, and extra special thanks to Colin for today's copy editing. My plan to go to FAC with article on the 9th of March is because I am taking a break and I'm going to

^Talk 23:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also makes you think, like I have been for the past twenty minutes. I want to add more to the above. Since the success of poliovirus discovery,

^Talk 20:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

Hi, Oh dear don't you approve? I reading up on recent developments in Rubella virology and to do it justice I felt it should go into a separate article. We could merge a later date. Thoughts? Graham. --

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

To be honest, I don't know if it will make a substantial separate article, but this will give me space to work on the virology, without disrupting

^Talk 20:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

The confusion is over the perennial discussion over whether it's allowable to refer to a club in the singular and the plural. As in discretionary plurals. Anyway, I think you, Graham, have generously made the relevant edits, I can't see whether there are any more issues (mainly because I didn't see there was a problem in the first place!) - I'd be very grateful if you could confirm that there are no more outstanding issues and perhaps whether you think the content is featured quality. As I said at the FAC, the article has been copyedited twice by some very committed reviewers (both football fans so perhaps therein lies the issue with these singular/plurals) so perhaps your outside view would be a good one too. It's quite rare for

WP:FOOTBALL to get a copyeditor from outside the project! Thanks for taking the time to comment and to make some changes to the article, very much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, this is a minor issue, and that's why I just left it as a comment. It was the inconsistency that bugged me; plural in one sentence, singular in the next. Discretionary plurals often sound likre a

^Talk 16:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

I've removed the conditional. Best of luck with the FAC. I was looking for a Civility award template to put on your user page, but I can't find one :( Time to get back to my Viruses. Best wishes, Graham. --

^Talk 18:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Villa history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, I have just left me support and comments at the FAC. Best of luck.--

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

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

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

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

Hi, I see that you have Russian language expertise in addition to an impressive collection on Solzhenitsyn. There was an earlier discussion of the interpretation of "Old Whiskers" at

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

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

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

Hi, I've added some more details on his arrest and "trial" to the article. Graham--

^Talk 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

Hello, I've like to say that I've addressed your concerns raised in

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

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

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

Hi, I've nominated the article

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

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

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on