User talk:Graham Beards
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
|
2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 |
Bladder cancer
[edit]Hi Graham Beards. I've just finished a first pass at overhauling bladder cancer, and am hoping to bring it to FAC soon. Any chance you could spare some time to look it over? Any feedback is appreciated. Ajpolino (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes of course. Graham Beards (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your help
[edit]Hello,
I wanted to thank you again for your help on the Virgo interferometer, which has finally been promoted to FA. Your interventions really helped making this a reality! So, thank you, and I wish you happy holidays. Let me know if you are ever in need of a review. Thuiop (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you and congratulations. Graham Beards (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
[edit]
|
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! | 
|
|
|
|
- Thanks x Graham Beards (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2025
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RFC, Wikipedia:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
- The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
Arbitration
- Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.
Miscellaneous
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!
Administrators' newsletter – February 2025
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Technical news
- Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
- A '
Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been closed.
Is this source okay to use?
[edit]I have been working on the "1993 Four Corners hantavirus outbreak" article, and I was wondering if this source would be acceptable on an FA-level article? Specifically the PDF that is linked. Velayinosu (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think it depends on what content it is used to validate. WP:MEDRS is more exacting than WP:V. Graham Beards (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
If you want to look at the article and leave suggestions for improvement on the talk page then you can. Velayinosu (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2025
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
- A series of 22 mini-RFCs that double-checked consensus on some aspects and improved certain parts of the administrator elections process has been closed (see the summary of the changes).
- A request for comment is open to gain consensus on whether future administrator elections should be held.
Technical news
- A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
- Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378
Miscellaneous
- The 2025 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, Arcticocean, Ameisenigel, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, Galahad, Nehaoua, Renvoy, Revi C., RoySmith, Teles and Zafer as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
- Following the 2025 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 1234qwer1234qwer4, AramilFeraxa, Daniuu, KonstantinaG07, MdsShakil and XXBlackburnXx.
Invitation to participate in research
[edit]Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.
We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2025
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2025).
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Miscellaneous
- Sign up for The Core Contest, a competition running from 15 April to 31 May to improve vital articles.
New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive
[edit]| May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol |  |
| |
| 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) 15:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Why Revert My Edit on Bacteria?
[edit]I did cite a source. There is nothing to discuss in the talk page. Jako96 (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, where is the source? Could you show me the diff. Graham Beards (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bacteria&diff=prev&oldid=1287807834 Jako96 (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- How does this proposal support the addition of "(monophyletic?)" to the TaxoBox? Graham Beards (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- See page 3: "Thus, despite the partially low phylogenetic resolution, the taxonomically preferable solution for bacterial kingdoms seems to be to accept the subdivision apparent in the study by Battistuzzi and Hedges [30], but to refine it according to more recent results [37, 52]. This reasoning suggests the proposal of Bacillati, Fusobacteriati, Pseudomonadati and Thermotogati." Jako96 (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- This doesn't answer my question. How does this proposal support the addition of "(monophyletic?)" to the TaxoBox? Graham Beards (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- See the whole paragraph: "Intriguingly, recent phylogenomic studies [37, 39, 49–52] juxtapose the groups ‘Terrabacteria’ and Gracilicutes, the latter being very similar to ‘Hydrobacteria’. Moreover, these studies indicate an isolated position of some of the bacterial phyla not included in either ‘Terrabacteria’ or ‘Hydrobacteria’ by Battistuzzi and Hedges [30]. The study by Coleman et al. [37] differs from the much earlier analysis by including Aquificota in Gracilicutes and by including Deinococcota not in ‘Terrabacteria’ but in a clade also comprising Synergistota and Thermotogota. The topologies presented in other studies examining the diderm–monoderm transition differed in part [53, 54], but this may be due to the use of fewer genes and different rooting approaches. Thus, despite the partially low phylogenetic resolution, the taxonomically preferable solution for bacterial kingdoms seems to be to accept the subdivision apparent in the study by Battistuzzi and Hedges [30], but to refine it according to more recent results [37, 52]. This reasoning suggests the proposal of Bacillati, Fusobacteriati, Pseudomonadati and Thermotogati." They say phylogenetic analyses' results varied and "Thus, despite the partially low phylogenetic resolution, the taxonomically preferable solution for bacterial kingdoms seems to be to accept the subdivision apparent in the study by Battistuzzi and Hedges [30], but to refine it according to more recent results [37, 52].". Jako96 (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- This does not support the the addition of "(monophyletic?)" to the TaxoBox, which is WP:OR and is not allowed. Graham Beards (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. Jako96 (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- This does not support the the addition of "(monophyletic?)" to the TaxoBox, which is WP:OR and is not allowed. Graham Beards (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- See the whole paragraph: "Intriguingly, recent phylogenomic studies [37, 39, 49–52] juxtapose the groups ‘Terrabacteria’ and Gracilicutes, the latter being very similar to ‘Hydrobacteria’. Moreover, these studies indicate an isolated position of some of the bacterial phyla not included in either ‘Terrabacteria’ or ‘Hydrobacteria’ by Battistuzzi and Hedges [30]. The study by Coleman et al. [37] differs from the much earlier analysis by including Aquificota in Gracilicutes and by including Deinococcota not in ‘Terrabacteria’ but in a clade also comprising Synergistota and Thermotogota. The topologies presented in other studies examining the diderm–monoderm transition differed in part [53, 54], but this may be due to the use of fewer genes and different rooting approaches. Thus, despite the partially low phylogenetic resolution, the taxonomically preferable solution for bacterial kingdoms seems to be to accept the subdivision apparent in the study by Battistuzzi and Hedges [30], but to refine it according to more recent results [37, 52]. This reasoning suggests the proposal of Bacillati, Fusobacteriati, Pseudomonadati and Thermotogati." They say phylogenetic analyses' results varied and "Thus, despite the partially low phylogenetic resolution, the taxonomically preferable solution for bacterial kingdoms seems to be to accept the subdivision apparent in the study by Battistuzzi and Hedges [30], but to refine it according to more recent results [37, 52].". Jako96 (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- This doesn't answer my question. How does this proposal support the addition of "(monophyletic?)" to the TaxoBox? Graham Beards (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- See page 3: "Thus, despite the partially low phylogenetic resolution, the taxonomically preferable solution for bacterial kingdoms seems to be to accept the subdivision apparent in the study by Battistuzzi and Hedges [30], but to refine it according to more recent results [37, 52]. This reasoning suggests the proposal of Bacillati, Fusobacteriati, Pseudomonadati and Thermotogati." Jako96 (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- How does this proposal support the addition of "(monophyletic?)" to the TaxoBox? Graham Beards (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bacteria&diff=prev&oldid=1287807834 Jako96 (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Birmingham
[edit]What has the octagon got to do with local goverment? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)