Jump to content

User talk:Graham Beards: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 58: Line 58:


: I was happy to add my support. [[User:GrahamColm|Graham Colm]] ([[User talk:GrahamColm#top|talk]]) 17:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
: I was happy to add my support. [[User:GrahamColm|Graham Colm]] ([[User talk:GrahamColm#top|talk]]) 17:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

== Alternative text for images ==

Graham,

I'd appreciate your opinion. As you may know, the [[WP:Alternative text for images]] guideline was demoted after it became clear it had no consensus and expert opinion was that we had taken the wrong approach. I drafted a revised text which was advertised for review, ultimately installed and then copyedited/commented-on by others. It lay dormant for a couple of months until SV turned up and started editing. From my POV, there are concepts she doesn't understand and there was a structure and order to the text she hasn't appreciated. This has meant, IMO, that her edits have deteriorated the guideline and made it both wrong and confusing in places. She's insulted me by saying text was changed without due process (I took great care over that) or that text in the lead didn't match the source (you know I'm extremely fussy about this, and chose the best source too). My problem is that while she's happy to edit war to get her version, I'm not, and I've been completely unable to get across to her what is wrong with it. I'm now at the point of giving up on it. I know this request for opinion isn't neutrally worded, but I want you to know how I feel and why I've lost my temper and patience over it. What don't I get? What am I not explaining well? Why is it so hard? BTW: I'm off on holiday for a couple of days, so won't be able to read/respond quickly. [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 07:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:58, 11 June 2010


Help required

Hello, I have two issues which I require intervention from you.

  • User User:Ліонкінг in following link, asks for help from other administrator User:AGKto get support so he can falsely misinform other readers in Wiki. This user is already warned by admin, but still does his dirty tricks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AGK

  • 2nd issue, is another pro-armenian user User:Aregakn, who acts neutral but slowly implements armenian propaganda in Azerbaijan related articles, he warned me by saying I cause racism, despite I was just saying my opinion without any insult and also he don't have any admin rights.

Here is link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NovaSkola

Could you please take action? Big thanks --NovaSkola (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Prize review

Hello! You reviewed the Nobel Prize at WP:FAC when it was nominated and opposed it. Since then it has gone through thorough copyediting and a peer review which is nearly finished. So hopefully I can re-nominate it soon again. Before I do so I would like to ask if you could check through the article and see if the problems you had with it last time is still there? I would be vary grateful for your help! Cheers, Esuzu (talkcontribs) 14:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Premature FAC

Hi Graham, you said at the FAC for Distributed element filter that you agreed it was premature. Have you got any ideas how this could be prevented in the future? The article went through peer review which I thought was supposed to identify problems before it got to FAC, and as far as I was concerned, everything had been ironed out, but clearly this was not enough. There is a sister article, Mechanical filter, currently at peer review and also, on the face of it, looking like it could go to FAC. I would dearly like this one not to be such hard going. SpinningSpark 23:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hepatitis B Image

I was wondering where you got the image of the virus currently used in the Hepatitis B article. Maybe we could get one from the CDC or similar organization? BruceSwanson (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's an electron micrograph that I produced some years ago when I had regular access to an electron microscope. Is there are problem with it? Graham Colm (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that you would prefer a more reliable source so I have changed the image to one from CDC. Graham Colm (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. Since the Hep B virus really exists there might as well be an official imprimatur on it. BruceSwanson (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Mahler TFA request

I have proposed Mahler for Today's Faetured Article for 7 July, his 150th birthday. Any support for this would be very welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was happy to add my support. Graham Colm (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative text for images

Graham,

I'd appreciate your opinion. As you may know, the WP:Alternative text for images guideline was demoted after it became clear it had no consensus and expert opinion was that we had taken the wrong approach. I drafted a revised text which was advertised for review, ultimately installed and then copyedited/commented-on by others. It lay dormant for a couple of months until SV turned up and started editing. From my POV, there are concepts she doesn't understand and there was a structure and order to the text she hasn't appreciated. This has meant, IMO, that her edits have deteriorated the guideline and made it both wrong and confusing in places. She's insulted me by saying text was changed without due process (I took great care over that) or that text in the lead didn't match the source (you know I'm extremely fussy about this, and chose the best source too). My problem is that while she's happy to edit war to get her version, I'm not, and I've been completely unable to get across to her what is wrong with it. I'm now at the point of giving up on it. I know this request for opinion isn't neutrally worded, but I want you to know how I feel and why I've lost my temper and patience over it. What don't I get? What am I not explaining well? Why is it so hard? BTW: I'm off on holiday for a couple of days, so won't be able to read/respond quickly. Colin°Talk 07:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]