User talk:Graham Beards/Archives/2021

---

The number of antivirals must be vague, unless you know the exact number. Clinically used antiviral number is on the order of 50, half for HIV. The description of “many" is an improvement over “several“. "Many" is correct where "several" is flattly wrong. Look up"several"; it basically means "two." Try to respect your fellow editors instead of refexively reverting without thinking. Now you don't like my edit and you have left an error. Fix it. SBHarris 18:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Wow, this comment appears quite rude to me. Please moderate your tone, especially if you want others to take your suggestions seriously and in good faith.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to SHOUT. And you are not in a position to demand fixes. You introduced two errors. You did not write "many" you wrote "a number of", which doesn't really mean anything. I looked up "several" and it means "three or more". I changed it to several classes. And yes I do know how many antiviral drugs there are. Your other mistake was to change "hundredth" to "tenth". The average size of a virus is around 60 nanometres, whereas bacteria are around about 1 to 2 microns in diameter. I suggest you check your fellow editors credentials before being rude to them.Graham Beards (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I advise you not to be rude to anybody here. Graham Beards (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I second Shibbolethink‘s “wow”. @Sbharris: if you’re going to be that rude you, at least, have to be right. But Look up"several"; it basically means "two." is both wrong and laughable in equal measure. DeCausa (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me try again. I was indeed wrong about the definition of "several" and you were wrong about the definition of the phrase "a number of" which is not to be taken literally, but in colloquial English is essentially a synonym of "several"! They both mean "more than two but less than very many," According to Merriam-Webster. Perhaps this is some Americanism-- I hope not. Anyway, "a number of" does indeed mean "something." You have to go outside the dictionary to tap the connotation of language to know that if you tell your friend you have "several" things to tell him in person, he is going to be shocked later at discovering an agenda of 50 things (and complain he was not warned at one that long), but if you say you have "a number of things" to tell him, far less shocked at 50 things. That's all I have. The same goes for this article, and I was intending to avoid that very thing, and a simple quick reversion that as "no value" is rather rude itself. "A number of" is a better warning for later 50 than "several". If you poll 10 of your friends, they'll tell you so.

Perhaps we should put the approximate number of 50 up front.

The second thing is that after some study I think I reject your idea of anybody knowing how big the average virus is, as a fixed number, or the same for bacteria. http://book.bionumbers.org/how-big-are-viruses/. You'd have to spend a paragraph just defining what you mean anyway-- the mean of one individual of all known species? Has anybody even done that? The number-weighted mean out there in the world, pulled down by the size of all those ocean phages? The median, as this is a heavily skewed distribution? Most viruses are in the range of 20 nm to 200 nm, and that's about all you can intelligently say, I think. What's the "middle" of the distribution 20 to 200? Same problem occurs. If you have a cite for 60 nm, put it in. What's the middle of the bacterial range of 1000 nm to 2000 nm? Is it 1500 nm SBHarris 03:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sbharris, you are digging yourself deep, talking to a man (Graham) who has likely imaged many hundreds of species of viruses with electron microscopes over the course of his career. If anyone is going to have a solid estimate of how large the average virus is, it's going to be this guy. And yes, we do have good estimates, of the typical size of a virion for each virus family. Based on electron microscopy data.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you my cite. So you show me yours. SBHarris 09:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sbharris, you came shouting on my User Page[12], not my Talk Page and your rude comment was moved here. You concede that "several" and "a number of" are synonyms, so why did you change "several" to "a number of" and introduce the redundancy (with the edit summary "far more than two")?[13] I later changed it to "several classes", which is more helpful to the general reader than a ever-changing total. With regard to the sizes, in this book:

• • • Oxford, John; Kellam, Paul; Collier, Leslie (2016). Human Virology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
      OCLC 968152575., there is a useful diagram on page five [14]
      (scroll down).

The diagram shows the comparative sizes of viruses compared to E. coli. It shows that my 1/100 is a better illustration of the difference than your 1/10. Had you introduced giant viruses into the discussion, your argument would have warranted more discussion. But they are called "giant viruses" for a good reason, implying that they are not typical. What is typical is shown in this electron micrograph of mine (a Featured Picture), which shows viruses attached to the end of an E. coli bacterium. The viruses – and there are hundreds of them – are clearly less that 1/10 the size of the bacterium. In the real world, had a student quoted your 1/10 size in an examination, they would have lost marks. I'm looking forward to your apologies. Graham Beards (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sbharris, I have to agree with the other comments here about rudeness. And you made a number of [see what I did there] mistakes. The "several" thing, where you seem to confuse the word with "a couple", is probably best put down to a brain fart and you'd be wise not to dig yourself further into that hole. Wrt size, I've found Graham to be very approachable when I question what has been written. He's good at either explaining why the text says what it says, or accepting that it isn't clear or there's a mistake, and fixing it. He's certainly keen that our articles should be accurate and clear. I think it would be better if you'd asked (on the virus talk page) about the size comparison, rather than inserting your own judgement, and getting all hot and bothered when it got reverted.

You are right that simple averages can be misleading and we could weight things in different ways. If we were considering averages, perhaps neither 10th nor 100th are correct, and one might think another figure (50th?) or a range (10-100 times) would be more accurate, whatever "accurate" means here. And there's the whole complication of diameter vs length and there being a large variety of shapes. But the article says "Most virus species...", which isn't an average figure. The point of the sentence really is to say most viruses are invisible to an optical microscope and are quite considerably smaller than bacteria. -- Colin°^Talk 10:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, yes and thank you. To simplify things, I based my comparison on spheres that's where diameters come in. Rotavirus, a typical virus, and a staphylococus (a typical round bacterium) are both spherical and have diameters of around 0.6 and 1 micron respectively. If you calculate the volume (size) of each, the difference is greater than 100 times. (If my arithmetic is correct!) I think the confusion has arisen from thinking the values given were lengths. Sbharris Although the article does say "diameter", I'll check that it is clear on this. Graham Beards (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is valid to consider size as a volume measure (we expect larger sizes for shoes and clothes to be bigger all round). The word is a little imprecise, though, and diameter and length are perhaps easier to quantify in microns and nanometres, and those numbers relatable to whether it is visible. Ultimately I don't think it matters much to the point of the sentence as long as the reader comes away thinking they are an awful lot smaller. -- Colin°^Talk 16:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. All that would have saved a lot of fighting. SBHarris 01:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards: Sbharris, you came shouting on my User Page[5], not my Talk Page and your rude comment was moved here.

ANSWER: I think rudeness is best discussed on user pages, as it’s a user problem, not a topic problem. (user:SandyGeorgia, it can be done both ways). A simple error is not rude. Thoughtless reversions without checking on sources, and containing errors in the reversion comment themselves, are rude. BTW, much of the “shouting,” if you must complain of it yet again, was a stuck capslock function due to a nasty interaction between iPhone and WP software; I fixed it five minutes later before you had time to complain, and you know it. (I am going to quit editing with a smartphone, as it leads to ugly mistakes.)

You concede that "several" and "a number of" are synonyms, so why did you change "several" to "a number of" and introduce the redundancy (with the edit summary "far more than two")?

Because, as I said, I had a wrong definition of several. As did you. As I said, it’s a hole for both of us, as you reverted “a number of” in place of the old “several.” Logical question: if they were indeed exact synonyms, and you knew it, you had no reason for a curt revert, did you? That’s just rude to do it, then. And if you are going to argue that reverts of changes that are zero improvement are your goal, your revert note was erroneous and cannot be explained: you said “That's even more vague 1, 2, 3 , 4” So you did not think it a synonym. I do not, however, see you admitting any mistakes. Do you do that? It’s *not* more vague, and I have no idea what you mean by “1,2,3,4”, but whatever it was, you are not closer than I was. Sheesh.

FYI, English has very few exact synonyms: if it did, it would collapse into something closer to Orwell’s Newspeak, or at least, into Basic English. In actuality “a number of” connotes a bigger number than “several”, so you should have let it stand as a synonym or even an improvement, or discussed. Using the word to describe “classes” rather than number of drugs is an improvement and recognizes this (even though again you will not admit it.)

[6] I later changed it to "several classes", which is more helpful to the general reader than a ever-changing total.

The number of classes is ever-changing too: we are up to seven now with just HIV.

With regard to the sizes, in this book: Oxford, John; Kellam, Paul; Collier, Leslie (2016). Human Virology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-871468-2. OCLC 968152575., there is a useful diagram on page five [7] (scroll down). The diagram shows the comparative sizes of viruses compared to E. coli. It shows that my 1/100 is a better illustration of the difference than your 1/10.

That depends on whether you are talking about volume or length. It’s a crappy illustration pulled out of the air by some illustrator with a 1000 nm x 3000+ nm E. coli (wrong). I’m not impressed and you should have read my article which has a far superior quantitative discussion.

Had you introduced giant viruses into the discussion, your argument would have warranted more discussion. But they are called "giant viruses" for a good reason, implying that they are not typical. What is typical is shown in this electron micrograph of mine (a Featured Picture), which shows viruses attached to the end of an E. coli bacterium. The viruses – and there are hundreds of them – are clearly less that 1/10 the size of the bacterium.

There’s that word “size”. And you’re doing down the road of meandering about “typical.” (Another bad word). If typical is weighted by virion numbers, almost all virus particles in the world are ocean phages. But (sloppily) you then poked an illustration from a text of human virology at me, with five classes of human infectious viruses. Needless to say, none of them phages. Is this article about human viruses? The typical human infections plaguing the world right now feature 100-120 nm diameter virions (flu, HIV, COVID-19). Herpes, the middle class in your illustration, is 150-250 nm. So definitions are in order. I said that, and you’re not listening.

In the real world, had a student quoted your 1/10 size in an examination, they would have lost marks. I'm looking forward to your apologies. Graham Beards (talk) 3:01 am, Yesterday (UTC−7)

Yes, I had teachers like you. I was not that kind of medical school instructor myself when I had a hand in it. You’ll get an apology from me when you realize vague questions lead to vague answers. I’m perfectly aware of what I’m talking about, and I did apologize for my errors, and did introduce further thought on the problem. It is you who seem unable to do this, and it is you who seems to

WP:OWN this article, on account of being a virologist. But this is not a complex question of virology. It’s a matter of a simple question, like "how big is the average fish?" or “how hard does it blow in an average storm?” and it takes some clear thinking to even start to address it. It may not even have a good answer, as put that way. In any case, you don’t need a fisherman or weatherman to discuss it. It’s a problem of language, not science.SBHarris 01:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

ANSWER: I think rudeness is best discussed on user pages, as it’s a user problem, not a topic problem Sbharris, I think you may be misunderstanding. You posted on Graham's User Page, not his User talk page. That was the issue. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sbharris This discussion is closed. Graham Beards (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice for this article

Graham, I am unclear on how

]

SandyGeorgia, not OP or Graham, but agree that an edit notice would be beneficial. Very technical topic, outstanding article, often edited by non-experts in recent times. As it's not an admin sanction notice, I'm gonna go ahead and add one.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I prefer to take a slow, steady, collaborative approach to any changes to editnotices; there may have been a reason for leaving off this one, and templates should be edited with caution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

bold and implemented the change before you replied. My apologies for the crossed wires. If anyone would like me to revert, I am happy to self-CSD. I also went ahead and fixed the talk page link on that edit notice, which used broken magic words. It was redlinking to the talk page of the edit notice instead of the talk page of the article in question, when transcluded.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with the edit notice. Thanks for adding it and fixing that link. Graham Beards (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All good then … but I don’t know about the fiddling of the template as created by Outriggr, who no longer edits. I try to take great care not to lose my template editor rights :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too scared to touch them. :-) Graham Beards (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, Graham Beards, I am naive and young :) But truly, I think my general rule of thumb (to mirror the old adage) is: If it's broken, no harm in fixing it. AKA if it's already broken, I'm probably not going to make it worse!— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno … like Graham, I am quite hesitant to touch anything on a template if I don’t know exactly what it’s doing, as I don’t want to lose template editor rights (which, if I understand correctly, are not passed out lightly :) Since Outriggr created the template, I really don’t know if your edits will stand … time will tell, thanks for trying to help, and not to worry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, Well, as with any of my edits, if you find a way in which it's breaking something or in error, don't hesitate to let me know! and thank you for the advice.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)== Taking a stab at writing a featured article ==[reply]

Hi Graham. Hope that you’re well. I have been thinking about taking a stab at upgrading a GA I’ve been involved in to FA status. Two I have been thinking about are antibiotic sensitivity testing and ureter. Do you think either need much more work in this regard?

As it is I understand my next step after getting your advice will be to put them up for a pre FA peer review and proceed from there. I’d be keen to get your opinion on this plan!

Cheers, Tom.Tom (LT) (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Tom (LT) (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, It's a pity Disk diffusion test was never merged with the sensitivity testing article as there is a lot of duplication. I wonder how many labs are using the Vitek system? I know of two near me. We might need to include this. The section on EUCAST and CLSI needs expanding to include, for example how zone sizes corelate with MIC, and how MICs compare with achievable antibiotic levels in the blood and tissues and the use of "expert rules". It should not take that much work. The flow of the prose need polishing. For example, this sentence needs to be moved further down "There are many factors that can affect the results of antibiotic sensitivity testing, including failure of the instrument, temperature, moisture, and potency of the antimicrobial agent." The reader hasn't been told about instruments and other methods at this stage. I didn't see "synergy" mentioned (or the opposite - I've forgotten what it is called). Ureter is looking good, but I confess anatomy is not my speciality. Both articles are certainly good candidates for a FA. Were you planning just to choose one to begin with? Graham Beards (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The honourable opposer's award
	By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of one or more well argued opposes at FAC. I may or or may not agree with your reasoning and/or your oppose, but I take a Voltarian attitude towards your right to state it. Thank you, such stands help to make Wikipedia stronger. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog Graham Beards (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Graham! Thank you for your (missing) comments regarding the FAR for Symphyotrichum lateriflorum. I see that you reverted them before I had a chance to respond, so I maybe you answered your own questions? If not, let me know and I'll be glad to address them. Eewilson (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 2600:1700:8660:E180:DDAB:3CAE:89A4:5D33 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Has also come to visit my talk page. I've reported at AIV (this is really an issue where blocking might be more effective); but notifying too in case nobody takes action there. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have left a warning. Let me know if you see any further problems. Already blocked, I see. Graham Beards (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am always happy to see how responsive the admin corps are these days against harassing IPs :) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you reverted my edit on Dementia with Lewy bodies. I literally copied the title from the article because there is a typo in the word current. Before I did that, I checked the style of capitalization in the references. It is mixed, see e.g. Yamada. Therefore I saw no reason to change it. For these reasons I want to revert your change.Keesal (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi we use lower case for the titles of journal articles; it doesn't matter in this case what was used in the original publication.Graham Beards (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

• Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration

• GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous

• The
  2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process
  has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

---

Hello there. Thanks for your works on

]

Hi, thanks. I have made a few more edits to remove duplicated citations and redundancies.[15] I'll probably engage with the GAN when it is initiated. Best. Graham Beards (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks good. I am looking at a few other sources as well. Will update shortly. Ktin (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

• Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
• The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
• The already authorized standard
  discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent
  .

---

A

. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone. It's rare to get recognition and I am pleased. Graham Beards (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	In recognition of your joint effort with Ktin in elevating Vella Pillay to good article status. — The Most Comfortable Chair 06:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Graham Beards (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A token of thanks Hi Graham Beards/Archives! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the
  2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed
  from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for
  advanced permissions
  .

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

---

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Invasive Spices (talk) 20 January 2022 (UTC) 22:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on the article's Talk Page. In my view, you are edit warring. Graham Beards (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get my ping at

WP:ANEW? I asked you a question there. Please answer it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it best just to move on, Graham Beards (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• discretionary sanctions
  that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

---

Please accept this note as an invitation to participate in the discussion of this latest FAC nomination for the nonmetal article.

The context is that you were involved in the FAC 3 discussion for the article (which was not prompted) or you are an editor who made a recent edit to the nonmetal article.

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you supported the previous version. Please indicate, on the nomination page, whether or not you still support the promotion. Petergans (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't and you are

convasing. Graham Beards (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I apologize. I misinterpreted what occurred after the issues you that had raised had been addressed. May I suggest again that you post your current position and the reasons for adopting it. Petergans (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should stop canvassing! Graham Beards (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	We don't have a surgeon's barnstar, but if we did, you'd get it for this forensic gutting of an entirely pointless GAR. SN54129 19:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you nominated for FA status,

]

Done. Graham Beards (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Here's one more you nominated, if interested: Introduction to viruses. Z1720 (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That one was updated only last year ready for its second Main Page appearance. Graham Beards (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's still satisfactory from last year's TFA run, can you mark it as so on

WP:URFA/2020A? This will allow someone to move it to "FAR not needed" (probably Sandy). Z1720 (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It's already marked. Graham Beards (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
• A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

• The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
• Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
• The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

• 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review
  .

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
• Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
• The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

---

Hi there. On 24 December you indefinitely blocked the IP 92.234.166.163 because they were a vandalism only account. However, this was an IP not an account and a couple of months have passed since the block, so it's likely no damage is going to be done. Could you unblock the IP? Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, done. Thanks for your message. Graham Beards (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open proposing a change to the minimum activity requirements for administrators.

Technical news

• Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
• When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Opening of proceedings has been updated to reflect current practice following a motion.
• A arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has been closed.
• A arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines has closed, and the results were that 56.98% of voters supported the guidelines. The results of this vote mean the Wikimedia Foundation Board will now review the guidelines.

---

I noticed you are listed as an FA mentor. Would you be so kind as to assist in reviewing the article Texas A&M University at the peer review page? Buffs (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)