one of my diagrams

Picture of the dayEdit

I have just listed this diagram as Picture of the day for 18th January. I don't want to mislead our readers, so please could you check the blurb, which is based on various related articles, for errors and amend or extend as you think fit. Incidentally, the file description mentions avian flu, but the diagram just mentions flu in general. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cwmhiraeth, the diagram is accurate (and excellent) but the blurb needs a little tweaking.Graham Beards (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Special Barnstar
Graham, Many thanks for your assistance, advice and words of support at FAC recently, all of which were very much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Ditto. You are missed at FAC. CassiantoTalk 17:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Graham Beards (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

1978 smallpox outbreak in the United KingdomEdit

I saw your peer review request and was fascinated to see that you had personal knowledge of the tragedy. When I was looking for sources I remember seeing some speculation that Janet Parker was exposed to the virus because she had entered the lab to deliver holiday photos that she had developed for the staff as a sideline. I think it was no more than gossip so couldn’t go in the article but I’m curious if you thought there was anything in it. (Btw, happy to help, if I can, if you want to take it to FAC or GA). DeCausa (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I think she might have gone into the lab thinking the "no entry" sign did not apply to her, or she could have been shown around the lab by a member of staff who liked to "impress". (I suspect the latter). Anyhow, she often offered to sell photographic film on the cheap around holiday times. She offered me some the previous year. I am not alone in thinking "she went to the virus". Thanks for the offer to help. I hope to take it to FA. I have found GA reviews wanting. I'll keep you posted. Best regards. Graham Beards (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Interesting - thanks. Best wishes. DeCausa (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't realised you knew Parker. I visited Birmingham virology dept in 1989 and they were still reeling from the events. I used to work in a group that worked with vaccinia; the labs where the virus was used and stored were always locked and the key was not kept where people could get at it. There again, I do wonder about transmission from things like door/fridge handles and tea-room chairs. I hope you get some useful comments out of peer review, it would be great to see this featured. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources (or ones from over 100 years ago) and those who live in glass housesEdit

I'll let you guess who nominated Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760) at FAC in 2009. Despite the recent clamouring for "no sources older than 100 years", it seems that it's fine to overlook that rule for the Mysore and Coorg article which has a stack of primary sources on which it relies for much of the article. I'm not going to do anything related to FA for an awfully long time, but if I wasn't convinced that I would be accused of pointy behaviour, Mysore and Coorg would be dropped into FAR at the drop of a hat. Badly written, 3 or 4 passages without citations, multiple breaches of the MoS (both galleries and "see map 1" style instructions, both of which are advised against) huge amounts of overlinking, a source list in which many of the works are not used (which does suggest it is not a full review of the available literature) and some rather garbled English. And people think it's acceptable to oppose on their own petty whims over a dislike of one source? I have to agree with Sandy Georgia that having deficient articles like Mysore and Coorg cheapens the whole FA pool as a whole. I wouldn't advise anyone else to try and file an FAR either – the way this place seems to be operating at the moment some jokers can get away with absolutely anything, no matter how toxic the effect. Thanks for all your assistance recently – it's a shame it's all had to come to this, and I doubt I'll be the last person to become frustrated at the intransigence of toxic reviewers. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Staying out of the specifics of the dispute between you and F&f, I'd like to address the FAR components of your post. With an active FAR, running any FA through for a checkup is less likely to be viewed as pointy and more likely to result in valid review. With a moribund FAR, where nominations there are uncommon, then running an article through is more likely to look pointy, particularly since there are so few people participating there, which lessens the chances of FAR saves. FA is meaningless without an active FAR. That's all :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
As I said Graham, some jokers can get away with absolutely anything, even non-compliant FAs. - SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy and Gavin, I am so sorry to see the decline of my beloved WP:FAC. When I was a coordinator (for four years) there were, on average sixty active candidates at any one time in the list; now there only around thirty if that. There hasn't been a successful science candidate for ages – or even a failed one that I can recall. All the editors capable of writing an FA at WP:MED have moved on and there hasn't been a medical FA for five or six years or thereabouts. As a result the medicine-related FAs are not maintained. We can count the number of mathematics FAs on one hand. The amount of FAs that no-longer meet the criteria is embarrassing. I have been looking after some including my own nominations (i.e. Bacteria, Prions, DNA) but there is a limit to my time and enthusiasm. Which is rock-bottom following recent events.
In the light of all this for a FAC about a very minor quirky event in English history to be battered to death by a maverick reviewer because of the use of an old source in the article is an absolute disgrace. Given the dearth of sources, why haven't the reviewers and subsequent commentators suggested a work-around?
The coords are justifying their absence during the FAC by telling each other that they are not "parents", which is most demeaning and patronising to participants. When I was a coordinator I checked every FAC every day to ensure fair play. In Sandy's tenure she gave me the impression she checked every ten minutes!
Without our talented writers there would be no FAs. And yes, before you shout out, without our reviewers there would be no FAs. But when you take on a review your take on responsibilities. To stick to the FA criteria is important. But it's equally important in my view to show respect to the nominators, most of whom spend hours and days and weeks on the articles. Fowler did neither.
This morning I deleted every FAC-related page from my Watchlist. I have better things to do with my time than participate in a process that is terminally ill. Graham Beards (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I could have written almost every word of that myself, Graham :) Yes, I checked FAC regularly (unless I was on an announced travel break), and read through Every Single FAC almost every day. As to "not parents", I frequently described myself as a mother bear where FAs were concerned, so I guess that's parent-ish. But I'm willing to keep giving it one last try. (If for no other reason than the despicable state of medical FAs.) I am trying everything I can think of to re-invigorate both FAC and FAR (to little success, I note :). I suspect I will eventually give up again, as you have, but that moment isn't upon me yet, today. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Valentine's Day thanksEdit

  Heartfelt thanks
... for your many years
of considerable help to make
Tourette syndrome the best it can be.
Happy Valentine's Day to you and yours!

Sandy (Talk) 19:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Lovely. Thank you. Graham Beards (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

My user pageEdit

Good afternoon, I don't think my userpage violated any Wikipedia policies. I'm just a big fan of Gerontology. Timothy McGuire (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, it does. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service and your page will be deleted unless it complies with Wikipedia policies. Graham Beards (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath FACEdit

Hey, just a friendly reminder about the nomination you left a comment at, if you can offer anything more in light of the improvements made since then, before the nomination gets stale. Thank you. isento (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed Coronavirus sectionsEdit

Hi, you recently removed my additions to the Coronavirus page stating "because the content you added belongs in the articles about the diseases, not the virus" but the virus is what causes the diseases meaning they are interconnected and could you please give me an example of how to reword one of the bullet points on the cdc page into my own words as that is what I tried to do as I was told to do this before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamqtpi (talkcontribs) 20:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Korea updateEdit

I have a link for the official KCDC update. for my previous edit on the template(the first one). Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC) I would thank you if you restore the edit.Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data sourceEdit

Hello, I believe is a reliable source. However, I think that other sources should be considered, too. For example, BNO news has original sources. So, we can cite them as a source. So, I think that the number of cases confirmed, death, and recoveries should be updated every edit we make. I think that at least those numbers shouldn't be pasted from other sites. Please note that I'm not good at citing or coding Wikipedia code, so I can't freely put sources. What are your thoughts about sources? Thank you. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the BNO is not a reliable source; it uses Twitter and Facebook among others. The Johns Hopkins site is reliable [1] and we should use this. Every addition or change to the template should be supported by a source otherwise they will be reverted. I am minded to put increase the protection level to "Admin". I was in process of fixing the totals and orders when you started causing edit conflicts. I think we should be a lot more cautious with sources and the data. This is not a competition. Verifiability is more important.Graham Beards (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Alright. I understand. So, social media such as Twitter and Facebook can't be reliable even if they are published by the government, officials, etc, right? But I still think that we can't 100% rely on, especially when it comes to the totals since this website could update slowly sometimes. Also, I'm not that good at citing a source. Since I'm not good in citing, I will check out the link you gave. If I make a mistake, please understand me. Also, can I cite Wikipedia pages(such as By the way, who or where is running the site Or how can we check out the sources for each territory? Thank you so much! Sincerely, Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, I would put a reliable source from BNO if there is any. Not directly from it.Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Iran recovEdit

Besides of Twitter source by BNO news, Wikipedia page on the outbreak in Iran claims so per

Since my edit keeps getting reverted, can you do it for me? Thanks. Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

If you do not know how to do add citations please read WP:CITE before editing articles.Graham Beards (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Wait, was the source reliable?


Was this edit on purpose? It's misplaced and unsigned at least. --mfb (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Hi, yes it was on purpose. I have tidied the page. Thanks for the heads up.Graham Beards (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Poor phrasingEdit

I regret that the "leading lights" comment offended you, as I gather it did. It was not intended as any reflection on you or your competence. I am trying my best to do due diligence on a matter where I have no expertise and deal with an extraordinary request in an appropriate manner. My wording was poor, and I apologize for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, thanks. We have all made a poor wording choice in our time here. I have been equally guilty in the past (and probably will again in the future). Best regards. Graham Beards (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Wehwalt. What say ye, Graham ... should we work up the blurb and put it forward at TFAR? I am also unsure how we can ask for volunteers to switch out their TFA without canvassing. I could approach, for example, Ceoil, and perhaps Montanabw would move Secretariat to the day that the Kentucky Derby would have been held, as it has been cancelled. We could put forward other ideas, but I would like guidance from Wehwalt on how to do this without canvassing. Perhaps, once the article and blurb are ready, we could post a neutral request to the talk page of each article now scheduled ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
As you can see, I am writing a short endemic and pandemic section (with new diagram) for the article to incorporate the SARS-2 pandemic. I should be able to finish this in the next few hours. The old blurb (which I like) will need sexing up and then we progress as you suggest. Graham Beards (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I started the blurb page just to help save you some typing; edit it as you will! Then we can move it to TFAR when you are ready. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
You might be interested in this [2]. Graham Beards (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad they spoke with you and I guess you have had some success in the higher level articles, but by adding coronavirus to an ITN banner, we have ended up with TONS of crap like 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States, which does nothing to cover the basics, and has become only a repository for political bashing. I added a few basics there before I gave up. Keep going :) Off to mail some hand sanitizer to my son, who is a milennial scared to death. Back later to help on article, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Graham, I haven't launched Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Introduction to viruses yet at TFAR; want to make sure you're ready. Is that blurb good? I'll doublecheck it carefully tomorrow and launch if all is good ... now it's past my bedtime. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the blurb is fine and I am only tweaking the article now. We might see more comments today. Speak later. Graham Beards (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Need to doublecheck the length of the blurb ... it is possible it could handle one more sentence, per character count, but I haven't checked carefully. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


I have matched the illustration with the link you provided

Coronavirus virion structure

please update it to corona virus wiki page in morphology

SPQR10 (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


Not MEDRS, but interesting. [3]. Is there content there that can be included at Introduction, if MEDRS sources are found? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look. :-) Graham Beards (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:THFlewett.jpgEdit


The file File:THFlewett.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Introduction to viruses TFAEdit

  COVID-19 Barnstar
For quickly re-working Introduction to viruses for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 27, 2020. Thanks for all you do! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy. 18:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the article written "because viruses are important and despite their tiny size, very complex. Because of their complexity, the main article, Virus, can be difficult to understand in parts, especially by those readers with little knowledge of biology" - how true! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Rotavirus seasonal distribution.jpgEdit


The file File:Rotavirus seasonal distribution.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)



"There is no consensus on whether drug prices should be included in articles at all."

So no consensus to remove the material.

"Where secondary sources discuss pricing extensively (insulin being a frequently cited example), that information may be worth including in the article; where there is little discussion of pricing in secondary sources, it generally should not be included."

The details on price were discussed by secondary sources extensively. So it fulfills the criteria in the RfC.

"Drugs which fall into the grey area between these extremes should be discussed on a case-by-case basis."

There was discussion on the talk page already and claims were sources to not just primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


Graham, unless you put diffs on this evidence, the arbs are likely to ignore it. [4]. You should link to where you found the comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I cannot locate those comments at Talk:Coronavirus ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Graham Beards (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!Edit

File:Phage.jpg scheduled for POTDEdit

Hi Graham Beards,

This is to let you know that the featured picture File:Phage.jpg, which you uploaded or nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for May 24, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-05-24. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


A bacteriophage is a virus that infects and replicates within bacteria and archaea. Bacteriophages are among the most common and diverse entities in the biosphere, found wherever bacteria are present. Early evidence of their existence came when the English bacteriologist Ernest Hanbury Hankin reported in 1896 that something in the waters of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers in India had a marked antibacterial action against cholera, but was so minute that it could pass through a very fine porcelain filter.

This picture is a transmission electron micrograph at approximately 200,000× magnification, showing numerous bacteriophages attached to the exterior of a bacterium's cell wall.

Photograph credit: Graham Beards

copyright of images in ICTV proposalsEdit

The proposal for Duplodnaviria has a useful image that illustrates the relation between its viruses. Is it okay to use images in these proposals on Wikipedia? Velayinosu (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

No ICTV images cannot be used. All the content, including proposals is Copyright © 2019, International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV). Graham Beards (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

SARS article edit thanksEdit

Greetings, User:Graham Beards. Thank you for the acknowledgement on the Koch's postulates clarifying language. It appears you have some background in phage. Excellent. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus icosahedral protein shellEdit

Hello, I noticed your edit at Coronavirus about the icosahedral protein shell. I left a question about that on the article's talk page. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Australasian Antarctic ExpeditionEdit


Thank you for your part in bringing Australasian Antarctic Expedition to the Main page today, in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)