User talk:Graham Beards/Archives/2013

Redirect was cancelled
Hi, I'm Mniotr7, the contributor of Norwalk viurs. There is confusion on whether people should use the term Norovirus or Norwalk virus. Norwalk virus page provides the answer to such questions, where International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) strongly encourages to use the term Norwalk virus rather than Norovirus when referring to outbreaks of the disease. I don't think just "redirect to Norovirus" is appropriate for this case, even if the present content of Norwalk viurs is partially overlapped with that of Norovirus, becuase the information of Norwalk virus page is not wrong. The page will be updated by some contributors including me in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mniotr7 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Norwalk virus and Norovirus
Hi. Please read the present content of Norwalk virus, which is much different from that of Norovirus. could be replaced with "==See also== at the end of the article, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponyy (talk • contribs)  21:12, 1 January 2013
 * Norovirus"


 * Hi, I have read it. To be blunt, the Norwalk virus article is embarrassing. We use the genus name for most of our virus articles such as Rotavirus, Cytomegalovirus, Hepatitis B virus and so one. There is only one species in the genus Norovirus, and that's Norwalk virus. Should more species of norovirus be discovered, there might be a case for a separate article on Norwalk, but after over twenty years of research, none have been found. The norovirus article gets thousands of hits a month, and to have a separate article on the single species of the genus does not make sense and is content forking. In the norovirus article, the 2011 recommendations of the ICTV is already covered. What are you going to add to Norwalk virus that is not already in Norovirus? Not much I suspect. Originally we had a sensible redirect from Norwalk virus to Norovirus but when I re-established this I was reverted. We have to consider our readers – they are not going to look-up Norwalk virus, they will want to find out about noroviruses, because this is the name the media use. Despite the ICTVs 2011 attempts to placate one Japanese person whose name happens to rhyme with Noro, their wishes have not been granted. Wikipedia is not the place to right wrongs. Graham Colm (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I feel sorry to hear your statement "Despite the ICTVs 2011 attempts to placate one Japanese person whose name happens to rhyme with Noro, their wishes have not been granted," although you have contributed so much in Wikipedia... This is just based on your speculation. I'm not fully satisfied with your response, but now I'm ok with the Norwalk virus page including "main artilce Norovirus." I and my friends will update the page and you can modify the page because we are using Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponyy (talk • contribs) 04:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Casting Crowns FAC
Hello, I noticed you closed my FAC for Casting Crowns. I think your decision was a bit hasty given there was discussion going on, but I was wondering if you knew any copyeditors that could help. I haven't ever asked for a copyedit, so I'm not quite sure which editors are willing to do them.  Toa   Nidhiki05  03:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
And yet another year went by where I wasn't around to wish you a Happy Birthday, so please accept my apologies, or at least pull me off of the ledge! Happy Belated Birthday, and a Happy New Year, too !!! All the best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sandy! And it's great to have your eyes back at FAC where they were sorely missed. I would never put you on a ledge. Graham Colm (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wing Coaster FAC
Hi, can you take a second look at the Wing Coaster article as I believe I have fixed the issues you mentioned on the review page.--Dom497 (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Favourite / most representative FA of 2012
Hi Graham, as an active delegate would you be willing to give a write up about your favourite new FA of 2012, or the one you consider most representative of Wikipedians' work during the timeframe? Something like this maybe, but for articles. Ed said it would fun to do, and I agree it would be interesting. If you're interested, just reply here and I'll set some space aside. (Note: I am also asking Ian and Brian, because the more the merrier). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, how many words and when's the deadline? Graham Colm (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a hundred or so, no need for anything too in-depth. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I've not been fond of the increasing trend over the last few years towards editorializing at the Signpost, and in this case I wonder how FAC benefits from an editorialized popularity contest? Perhaps the delegates can negotiate that minefield. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied at Ian's talk. One of the reasons I've asked Graham, Ian, and Brian is because all three are respected at FAC and have a good understanding of the kinds of content promoted this year. I did my "editorialising" two weeks ago, with a straighter overview last week. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * I was more concerned with putting it in the Lead of a Featured Article. I also didn't like the tense "has been", which is why I added the recentism comment in the edit summary. The readership might be looking for general article on influenza for all we know, perhaps to back-up something in the news. Flu season has many problems, but at least it is not an FA, (it should be called "Seasonality of influenza" for a start). I wouldn't object to a See also link to 2012–2013 flu season. Thanks for the coffee, it was extremely civil of you considering I reverted your edit; there are many others who would not have been so polite. Graham Colm (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Animal virus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sandfly fever (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Maus
I disagree with your close of the FAC as no consensus to promote. There was a clear overweight of support comments and the nominator had addressed all outstanding comments, and one oppose had been changed to support. I don't think it is fair to archive simply because some people couldn't be bothered to come back and change their vote when their comments had been addressed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll leave it open for now. I suggest the nominator pings the reviewers. I am particularly interested in Laser's response. Graham Colm (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just think it is so sad and discouraging to waste editors efforts like that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

God of War FAC‎
Is it possible this could be re-opened? It had three supports, and was pending another look by SandyGeorgia. I could ping her to see if she'd like to either remove her oppose or reaffirm it, to clarify the final state of the nomination either way. —Torchiest talkedits 19:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry but no. After nearly two months at FAC, there was no clear consensus to promote. And spotchecks of sources for close-paraphrasing and verification still need to done. I suggest you work on the article in the light of Sandy's comments and renominate when the rules allow. I will try to arrange an early spotcheck for you then. Best wishes, Graham Colm (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That wasn't my nomination. I spotchecked about a dozen sources, which led to the correction of some close paraphrasing and attribution problems, before supporting, but I moved all my comments to the talk page to avoid clutter. —Torchiest talkedits 19:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my confusion. But I still think it's not ready. Graham Colm (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the response. —Torchiest talkedits 20:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Throwing in my two cents here as the nominator. It would have been nice to have had another look by SandyGeorgia, at least one more time, as after her last comment (which she said the article was "close"), Torchiest tried to address the issues she brought up and now we don't know if he addressed those issues fully because she can't respond there (grant it, it can be addressed on a Talk page, but it would have been better addressed at the nomination before its closure). I have to agree with User:Manaus' comments in the section above this one titled Maus, as a lot of it can apply to this nomination. -- JDC808  ♫  23:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Request
Since my FA nomination for God of War was not closed based on outstanding opposes (as it was 3 supports and only 1 oppose), may I renominate the article this Wednesday (or sooner if you allow it)? This Wednesday will make one week since you closed the nomination. It would seem fair because I don't know what we need to do to the article, as SandyGeorgia did not return before the nomination's closure to let us know if her comments were satisfied. She also has not responded to my request to post on the article's Talk page to let us know if they were satisfied and if she had any other concerns. -- JDC808  ♫  20:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What improvements have been made since the nomination was closed? Graham Colm (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that's the thing, we don't know what we need to improve since SandyGeorgia has not responded. Torchiest made several copy/edits in response to her last comment on the previous nomination between the time of her last comment and the closure of the nomination. -- JDC808  ♫  21:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * She wrote "the prose needs work throughout", and this is subsequent work . Although I suspect this is not enough, you can renominate now. Please add a link to this discussion in your nomination statement. Graham Colm (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you very much. -- JDC808  ♫  22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * PS. What is "quick time sex"? Graham Colm (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * After "quick time sex" is the word mini-game. It's similar to the quick time event feature previously described, except the player's character is, to put it bluntly, having sex (offscreen that is). -- JDC808  ♫  21:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It needs more explanation; I thought it was a typo. (And a very amusing one). Graham Colm (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha alright. -- JDC808  ♫  22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Journal
I was contacting you because I thought you should be an editor and submit content: Wikipedia_talk:MED. Maybe we could even get blood coagulation to be a high-quality article for submission. Biosthmors (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (Swear I'm not following you around!) If Graham's interested in that program, I would put forth Rotavirus and virus as they're both featured and well-maintained. Maralia (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Rotavirus is topical at the moment because of the increased uptake of the vaccine –it will introduced in the UK this year – and should be relatively straightforward to polish for publication. Having said that, James and I have had disagreements over the scope of the article in the past,  but I don't think this would be an obstacle. The content of Virus can be found in any half-decent textbook, so I am not sure whether it would be suitable. Personally, I don't need publications; I have a career's worth. But if this project is going to increase the quality of Wikipedia and raise its profile, then count me in. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Plant's Strider SPI

 * I've started an SPI here, perhaps you would consider weighing-in on the socking likelyhood. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong FA category
Hi, Graham. When you have a minute I wonder if you'd mind moving Monteverdi's lost operas from its present FA category, "Literature and theatre", to "Music" where I think it more properly belongs? Donizetti's more-or-less lost opera L'ange de Nisida, and the lost G&S operetta Thespis, are both listed with Music, and I think these phantoms of Monteverdi's ought to be, too. Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have done that Brian. Graham Colm (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Note to any TPSs, I'll will be away for two days - back on Wednesday. Graham Colm (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Insidelouvrepyramid2.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Insidelouvrepyramid2.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This was discussed some years ago: Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_August_7. Graham Colm (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Gravity Bone
Hey Graham. I currently have an FAC opened but it is more than a month and I think it is almost ready to be closed (as successful maybe). Therefore, I'd like to request you if I can add up another nomination, this time for Gravity Bone. This article has been awaiting for some time to be brought up to FAC and I think that, as most of the concerns of my other FAC are dealt, I can handle a new FAC. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ  21  03:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes go ahead and please link to this conversation in your nomination statement. While I have your attention, is the current FAC your first? If so, spotchecks of the sources for verification and close-paraphrasing will be needed. Graham Colm (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! And no, that one is my fifth FAC and, if promoted, it will become my third featured article :) (And don't worry about close paraphrasing and verification, I know how to avoid the former and handle the latter). Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21  16:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Graham, just so you're aware, I saw that Hahc21 had a spotcheck on a recent FAC so I wasn't insisting on one for Homework, but I have left it open to give WesleyDodds a chance to review further per his recent comment, if he can do so shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian. Graham Colm (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Wagner FAC
Just want to be sure that the article's use of File:Photo of Gustav Mahler by Moritz Nähr 01.jpg does not constitute a copyvio. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  00:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The image is hosted on Wikipedia, not the Commons. It is PD in the US, where the Wikipedia servers are located. Jappalang upload the file and he understands copyright law better than many here. It might need a fair use rationelle (perhaps), but it is certainly not a case of copyright violation. Graham Colm (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's interesting to me because I've been given contrary information on numerous occasions in that regard (random spheres of influence). E.g., Crisco1492 told me that an image needed to be PD in England for use in "Imagine", specifically File:John Lennon Imagine 1971.jpg: "If originally published in the UK than UK copyright law would apply and this would be non-free". Why would this apply to England but not Austria? Was Crisco wrong? I agree that Jappalang would know better than most, but the file is completely lacking a FUR for an article on Wagner. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Harrison FAC archived
I'm curious, did JG66's oppose weigh significantly in your choice to archive the nom after only 5 weeks at FAC? Because essentially, his oppose was based on wanting impossible amounts of detail, which was a factor in Sandy's oppose. Also, SandyGeorgia's oppose was fully resolved TMK and I just today pinged her to take another look. Lastly, JG66's oppose and SandyGeorgia's oppose directly contradict each other so that I don't see how they could both be considered valid. So why did you archive it so early when the only two opposes were in contradiction with each other? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  00:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because after one month there was no consensus to promote. Graham Colm (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But in the next two weeks there may well have been. Is there some 30-day rule-of-thumb guideline of which I am unaware? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The rule is "The FA director, Raul654—or one of his delegates, Ucucha, Graham Colm, and Ian Rose—determines the timing of the process for each nomination." In my experience, a month is usually enough to establish consensus. As a delegate, it's my job to keep the list manageable and to prevent the backlog seen on other projects. Graham Colm (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So after endless hours of work stretching over several months the effort was archived so as to shorten a list? Two words here: "editor retention". GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake. The article has not been deleted - it's there for the world to read - only the FAC has been archived. Are you here to contribute or to collect accolades? Graham Colm (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Collect accolades"? I just want to improve the project and for my work here to be held to a similar standard as those more established users. I think I have been wasting too much time here lately ... and today I see that I need to devote more effort to those things in my life that give back to me as much as I give to them. "... and in the end ... GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Madonna
Hi Graham. I realigned the lead image again, sorry, and I noticed your edit summary was reasoned. The placement has been well thought through, and apart form anything as the work is the left hand wing of a lost diptych and is very directional, I'd prefer to keep in it current placement. Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ceoil, thanks for this explanation. It just came as a surprise when I first saw it. Best of luck with the FAC, I will be following its progress with interest of course. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Serial out-of-process nommer
Just FYI, that's the third out-of-process nom on just this one article by that nominator ... and there have been others by that nom. I don't know whether this is useful information, just something I remembered off the top of my head. - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry Ian did that one. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

FAC question
Hi Graham, I'm looking to nominate an article for FA status by about the end of this month. I'm aiming to catch a tercentenary that comes up in April. How long is usually required for an FAC review? I was under the impression that it takes about a month? Prioryman (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, it depends on how well prepared the article is and the number of reviewers the FAC attracts. I promote candidates as soon as there is a clear consensus, a week can be long enough, although Ian sometimes prefers to allow more time for potential reviewers to comment. Graham Colm (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Seeking input
Your input would be greatly appreciated here. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  02:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

FAC woes
Hi Graham, please excuse the header title; I'm trying to be funny and dramatic in the hopes that someone pay attention to me, childhood issues and all. ;) Anyway, you might already know that one of the articles I work on, Sesame Street research, is experiencing some difficulties at FAC. Its first FAC  failed mostly because of lack of support.  Its second, which was archived earlier this week, got support but I wasn't able to address all the reviewers' concerns before it was closed.  Frustrating, but understandable in light of FAC policies.  In some ways, this article is difficult to review; even though everyone has seen The Show, it's not a well-known topic.  It's somewhat specialized, technical, and complicated, making it off-putting to lots of folks, which I have some pride about since it is about a children's TV show.

Anyway, I'd like to resubmit the article sooner rather than later so that I can inform its past reviewers/supporters, without canvassing of course. I'm also aware of the policy of waiting two weeks before resubmitting an FAC, but at this point, and with how close it is to being an FA, I would like to get your opinion about resubmitting now. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Christine, of course you can inform past reviewers of a renomination. You could post a short message to say that it is back at FAC and any comments would be appreciated. Graham Colm (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (tpw) Graham, Christine's question is whether or not it would be okay for her to renom the article sooner than the rule-of-thumb two week waiting period would suggest/allow. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yah, that was the question I came here to get answered. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) No, I don't think an exemption is warranted in this case as the FAC did not receive minimal or no feedback. If they haven't been already, I would prefer the remaining comments from Evanh to be addressed before renomination. Another week is not too long to wait and will afford an opportunity for further polishing. Graham Colm (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yah, but... ;) Actually, I moved Evanh's unresolved comments to the article's talk page and addressed them. They proved to be very helpful.  If the support for the 2nd FAC hadn't come in so late, and if RL hadn't gotten in the way, and if it had stayed open for a couple more days, I would've been able to address them and more support would've probably come in and it most likely would've passed.  I think.  (Forgive the run-on, but you get my point, I'm sure.)  I'm worried it'll get little support because editors may look at it and not see any more to add, since it's been reviewed so much, and because of its technical and obscure nature.  It's ready, and doesn't need much polishing.  I think. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar
I just wanted to stop by and thank you for the barnstar you gave me. That was very nice of you! alexanderao (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Requesting leave
Graham, may I please have your permission to do this even though this was recently archived. I honestly thought it was a two-week ban on the article, not the editor or I would have respectfully asked you before-hand (or nomed the former four days ago). GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  06:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Although I sense a hint of sarcasm in your request (having read your comments elsewhere) because the list is a manageable 45 candidates, I will let the nomination stand. Please do not interpret this as a precedent. The two week rule was established following a community discussion not on a whim but for good reasons, which have been reiterated in discussions that you have been party to. Graham Colm (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks much Graham, but have I lost all good-faith with you? There isn't any intended sarcasm in my above request. I would have gladly asked you first, I just hadn't read the rule in so long that I honestly didn't realise I needed to nom the second article before the first was archived, an event I wasn't expecting quite so soon. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's just move on and leave recent disagreements where they belong - in the past. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thanks Graham! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * and if you hadn't moved that conversation to the Talk Page, I would have. Not the best way to start a FAC methinks. Looking forward to reading the reviews, I remember exactly where I was when I heard of Hendrix's death. Graham Colm (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, what have I done wrong now? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing, I was just agreeing with your moving the discussion and your edit summary.. Graham Colm (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, it went over my head sorry. You meant "I (as in you) would have" moved it there as well. I thought that would be fine and also a good idea. Thanks again. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

ANA article
Hi Graham, I have nearly finished sorting out the ANA article. Would you be able to have a quick look at it here before I dump it into the wiki page please. Thanks, Simon Caulton (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Simon, I have replied on your Talk Page. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

FAC Closings
Because of GimmeBot's inactivity, you and others have been manually closing Featured Article Nominations. However, VoxelBot has been coded to replace Gimmebot and is currently on trial, so please just add promoted or not promoted articles to the appropriate logs as before. Thanks! Vaca tion  9  16:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick question
I assume that the guideline: "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them", means that I am clear to co-nom Harrison during this, but I wanted to be sure that I'm not misreading the second part, which seems like it should say: "two nominations are allowed" instead of "two nominations may be allowed", which is a bit ambiguous, IMO. Can you please clarify? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  03:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can be a con-nominator of another FAC. Graham Colm (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Graham, to clarify, are you granting me that priv, or should the wording be copy-edited so as to be more obvious/direct? E.g. "two nominations are allowed ..."? Because I'm still unsure if its allowed or needs to be granted. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ping. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in replying. I think this should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Best wishes, Graham Colm (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Social history of viruses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lassa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

God of War FAC
May I ask why it was not promoted even though it had 6 votes of support versus 2 opposes (which one of those hasn't returned or edited in over a month)? -- JDC808  ♫  03:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, promotions are not based on votes but on consensus. The FAC instructions say, "the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support." Although declarations of support are important to deciding whether there is a consensus, some, such as the one from Hounder who just referred to the first FAC where s/he did not comment are not helpful and I did not take this into consideration. The support from Axl and Torchiest carried more weight because of their contributions to the first FAC. The second FAC, which I archived yesterday, had been running for seven weeks; an unusually long time. But two unstruck opposes remained: The review from Neil916 was helpful, but the one from John was much less so . In deciding to archive the nomination I agreed with Penguin's comment that, "it still does not have the brilliant and professional prose" required for a Featured Article.  Best wishes, Graham Colm (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, in regards to Penguin's comment, would you be able to provide an example of where the prose is not "brilliant and professional"? The article has received numerous copy-edits and the independent copy-editor who copy-edited after Penguin's comment said it looked excellent, which makes it hard to understand where the are still issues with the prose. -- JDC808  ♫  22:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Nathuram Godse: 'Hanged' vs. 'Hung'
Hello. I've created a talk section at Nathuram Godse to help sort out the ongoing 'Hanged' vs. 'Hung' debate. Cheers. —Waldhorn (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Leaking wikitext in articles about FAs
Could you please take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria#Leaking_wikitext and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles#Leaking_wikitext? It'd be really great if these were resolved but I'm not entirely sure how to fix the issue. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 20:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see the problem. Graham Colm (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Classical blood coagulation pathway.png
I have used your diagram, "File:Classical blood coagulation pathway.png" in (the first draft of [we'll see what my chair says]) the literature review for my graduate thesis. An appropriate citation has been used to attribute you for the work. Thank you very much for contributing this diagram to the Wikimedia commons and I hope you continue to contribute in the future. -ITasteLikePaint (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Question re FAC close
Hi, I have another FAC question. I've requested that the FAC of Blue's Clues be closed. Would it be okay if I nominated another article before that happens? Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have archived the nomination. There are 47 candidates on list, so could you please wait for two weeks before nominating another article. Graham Colm (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Blue's Clues FAC
AS you closed its last nomination, could you take care of Featured article candidates/Blue's Clues/archive2. Oficially, it was never nominated through that page. Thanks Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  20:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks like it was never transcluded to the FAC page. I have archived it now and I hope the bot is capable of closing it. Thanks for spotting this. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar
It has been a long review process. Thank you for tolerating my sometimes pedantic criticism and responding constructively. Best wishes. Axl ¤  [Talk]  11:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Tvardovskij.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Tvardovskij.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 00:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012
Many of the issues are already at consensus. I plan on renominating in two weeks and linking to those discussions in my opening statement. I do have one ongoing RfC regarding one comment, which I was planning on also linking. With that said, do you have any suggestions to help gain a consensus? Casprings (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Apart from what can be achieved on the Talk Page, I am sorry but I don't. But please bear in mind that FAC is not a vote and if, in the delegate's view, a reasonable effort has been made to address all actionable opposes, this will be taken into account. Graham Colm (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Resurrectionists
I just wanted to thank you for your kind comments at this article's review, they're very much appreciated, moreso considering what some other people said. Parrot of Doom 14:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, would you like to help with H7N9 bird flu?
Hi Graham,

I'm writing to recent participants on the influenza page. I think it's important to cover H7N9, without making it overblown. Any time you can spare to help with the research and/or the editing will be most appreciated. Thanks. Cool Nerd (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Tvardovskij.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tvardovskij.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind jumping in?
Hello, I was wondering if you can take a look at my FAC? I'm trying to get as many reviewers so the article won't fail due to lack of reviews. Thanks! Jona talk to me  00:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

FAC query for Michigan State Trunkline Highway System
Michigan State Trunkline Highway System is at FAC, and if possible, it could run as the TFA on May 13 for the centennial of the system's creation. So far the nomination is sitting at 5 supports with an image review from the ACR noted. (The ACR also included a spotcheck of sources as all newer WP:HWY articles reviewed there have spotchecks done prior to promotion.) Of the supports at the FAC, two are from the ACR, one is a new review from within the project, one is from outside the project, and then also did some copyediting and supported. (He's a sometimes member of the USRD project, but he has not been active there as of late.) I'm curious if you could let me know if you'd like to see more reviews or not since there is a touch of a deadline involved if the article is going to get to TFA in time. Thanks,  Imzadi 1979  →   16:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fort Yellowstone
Hi Graham...can we make sure User:Mike Cline gets credit for the Fort Yellowstone article. I did some of the article work, nominated it and was busier responding to comments at the FAC page but we should be considered co-nominators. Is there a way to override the bot so his username is also associated with the process more? I know others do co-nominations and two or sometimes even three editors get credit.--MONGO 14:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added Mike as a co-nominator and also added his name here. This should be enough to confirm attribution. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--MONGO 05:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Duino Elegies
Hi, I was ready to support this, although still hoping for a light prose polish, but forgot about it - little seemed to happen recently. If it makes any difference. All Brian's points seem to be done too. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no clear consensus. I checked the article history; there had been no edits since April 28. I think the article will survive a second run at FAC where any remaining issues can be resolved. Graham Colm (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

@GrahamColm-- I'm a loss to understand how this wasn't promoted when there were two supports, one more coming as indicated by Johnbod above, no objections, and the other commenters suggestions were adequately addressed. Apparently, from what I see...if a drive-by FAC commenter/review offers suggestions and those suggestions are adequately addressed and there are no more suggestions coming (which would indicate, tacitly, that those needs were met) that just because the commenter/reviewer doesn't follow through and shout "support"...the efforts to adequately address those suggestions don't count? What else was there to edit past April 28th if the suggestions prior were met and all the edits for the past 6 weeks were solely to address things mentioned at the FAC? When there are no explicit objections, no remaining shortcomings unaddressed, and half of the reviewers supported it and other half were drive-bys whose comments were satisfied, how is there no consensus to promote? My previous FAC, for Alcohol laws of New Jersey was the same exact situation: a few support (roughly half the reviewers) no objections, and drive-by reviewers comments fully addressed-- and it was promoted. I fail to see consistency and I can't help but be a little confounded. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * On another note, I asked the reviewers to come back and take a second look after addressing their comments and if possible after that second look offer their support.
 * GermanJoe responded on his talk page saying he only looked at images, not the rest of the article and wasn't in the habit of supporting FACs where he only did images checks. Nevertheless, his needs were met and he said "The article looks fine nonetheless" on his talk page and "Issues have been addressed" on the FAC.
 * Brianboulton responded to me on his talk page saying "I will look at the article shortly; I think mine was only a partial review, and I may not be able to base a definite declaration on it" -- but never had further comments.
 * CurlyTurkey responded with more comments on the article which I addressed but he left in a huff because I disagreed with two of his suggestions that I asserted were subjective and unnecessary and not objective policy-mandated assessments (things that later another reviewer said were not necessary).
 * Curly Turkey did not withdraw because he "disagreed" with anything. He left because he didn't like the way in which he was being spoken to after having his feedback solicited on his talk page.  Curly Turkey does not understand why he is being slandered behind his back weeks after the said incident.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So, am I to assume that these partial reviews, the comments being fully addressed by myself, where the reviewer says "I didn't review the whole article" but had no further complaints or comments-- is counted as if they were an objection? That hardly seems sensible or fair. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, two declarations of support are rarely enough to make the consensus clear. (I admit, I missed one because of formatting issues). Johnbod told me of his intention to revisit the FAC after I had closed it so I had no idea of the "one more coming" and it is unfair of you to use this as an argument. Anyhow, I have reinstated the FAC as the bot hasn't run yet, to allow for further comments. This is not something we traditionally do. You might want to consider helping with the backlog by reviewing other candidates. Graham Colm (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for reinstating it, I appreciate it. I'll mention to Johnbod that it has been reinstated as well so he can get his further comments and prospective support in. If possible, could you offer a few comments from your vantage point as a delegate if you see other issues that need to be resolved. I will try to help with the backlog (I have comments on two three other FACs on the list now, and was looking at a third fourth last night) and recently, I've thought about at least aiming to participate in two FACs a week going forward. I started this year off hoping to do one GA review a week, and I think I've managed to do 4 this year. Nevertheless, I'll see what I can do. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Graham, As someone who gave my support for this article, thank you for reinstating the FAC review. DavidinNJ (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

SheiKra FLC
Hi, I noticed that you closed the review for SheiKra and was wondering how long I have to wait before I can renominate it? I know the set rule is 2 weeks but according to the reviews given on the review page, there are no other issues in the article that need to be addressed at this time (I believe you closed it because there was no consensus, correct?). With you being a delegate, I was hoping maybe you can give me an exception to re-nominate it sooner.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 18:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Dom, the list is very long at the moment. I'm sorry you will have to wait for two weeks before renominating. We are in need of more reviewers and one of my jobs is to focus what resources we have. Graham Colm (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! :) -- Dom497 ( talk ) 21:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Sickle cell disease
Question re: change made: cited text now says the "template strand" GTG is then transcribed to GUG. It's been a while since I've looked up the specifics, but this seems wrong to me, a CAC on the DNA template strand would lead to the RNA GUG codon in transcription. The coding strand would be GTG. Am I missing something? Yobol (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, no you are not missing anything. The mutation is usually described in the sources (and taught) for the coding strand. I didn't spot the reference to the template strand. I think we should change "template" to "coding" in the article. Sorry for adding to the confusion. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Virus Portal & Social history of viruses
Thanks for your kind words on the portal (at Social history of viruses); if you have any thoughts on what content to include then suggestions would be very welcome. I've created a suggestions page for the portal, but (probably because it's impossible to link it directly from the portal text-boxes without removing them from the default format), no-one is commenting there but me.

Re Social history of viruses, my main thought on a quick read is that it's a fascinating and well-written article about a rather ill-defined topic, with considerable overlap with History of virology and several other articles. I think I'd include a rather different set of topics under this title -- which might be a title problem. I'll try to come up with something a little more constructive at the peer review. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yamashiro FAC
I believe that the Yamashiro FAC has everything that it needs to be promoted, once you realize that Ed's review in the first section included images. If there's anything missing that you'd like to see, please let me know so I can try and find another reviewer or whatever.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for promoting Freedom for the Thought That We Hate
Thanks very much for your promotion of the article Freedom for the Thought That We Hate to WP:FA.

On a related note, if you're interested, perhaps you'd like to collaborate on a quality improvement project, for the main "core" or "vital" article, Freedom of speech.

I've started to put together some notes and ideas on how to proceed, at Talk:Freedom of speech.

Thanks again, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC on TFA images
Hi Graham, I'm sure you'll see my talk-page spam at WT:FAC and elsewhere, but in case not, you may be interested in a discussion that I've started at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. All views welcome. BencherliteTalk 16:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Middle Ages/archive1
I think we've hopefully addressed your issues, if you could kindly revisit when you have a chance? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

KFC
Graham, I've removed this from the FAC list as the nominator's just had one archived (by you, but it was next one my list too) -- I haven't yet removed the nom statement from the article talk page or arranged for the nom page to be blown away, on the chance that you might be okay with the nominator starting a new one immediately once we'd reminded him of the rules (which he should be well aware of in any case). Can you just let me know? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ian, I saw that. The current list is very long and we cannot accommodate out of process nominations without a good reason, which is lacking in this case. Please continue with the removal. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources reviews
Hi, Graham. I can't help noticing how few FACs are getting sources reviews at the moment. Some of the oldest noms don't have them yet. I'm prepared to spend a bit of time on this, so can you identify any of the long-standing noms which are on the verge of promotion? I'll do the source reviews for these, and also start work on some of the more recent. Please ping me. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this Brian. FAC is busy at the moment and any help will be much appreciated. I see that Ian is planning to post a list later today. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon
Hi there, GrahamColm, I hope you're doing well! :)

You previously participated in an FAC for Everything Tastes Better with Bacon.

It's subsequently had additional copy-editing through Guild of Copy Editors and a once-over by FA Writer Tim Riley.

I've nominated it for consideration a 2nd time at Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive2.

Your input would be appreciated, at Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive2.

Thank you for your time, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

FAC Archive issue
Hi. I noticed that Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy XIII-2/archive1 hasn't been archived. Maybe there was a bot issue at the time or something. GamerPro64 12:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, see here Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates. Graham Colm (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Graham, it's been a long time since we last talk. Anyway, I have Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded/archive1 opened since May 18. I know it's less than a month however, there are 5 supports and no oppose, also a check of the images and media was made and all seems to be fine. What's left are the source spotcheck, can you do them? Thank you! — Tomíca (T2ME) 11:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (Per reply on my talk page) Reviewing the nomination, I don't need to see a spotcheck or sources for this because your previous one was not problematic, what I've asked for at WT:FAC is a source review that's more about reliability of sources and consistent formatting of citations and references -- Nikkimaria and Brianboulton are the experts here... though if Graham wishes to look after it, no problem! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that actually. And I didn't see the second reply, I only saw the first one. Sorry. — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
 * Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
 * If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

FAC
Hello sir, well I just want to tell you that I haven't asked any of the supporters by email. The people I asked didn't even reflected to the fac page. I was not knowing about Canvassing in particular but Dr. Blofeld had told me not to ask anyone regarding the review. I thought if I directly ask them, then It should be helpful for the benefit of the article. As, Brain was also a part of First FAC...so i asked him to participate in this too. For, Crisco...well i noted his comment on another Indian FAC that's why. I have even apologized to both Brain and Crisco. If you want to ask each supporter, i don't have any problem because they were supporting it themselves. Do you think someone like Jimfbleak, Tim riley and Cassianto would come just by seeing email? I haven't asked any of the supporters. In fact, I asked Ian Rose to archive the nomination but, I can't compromise that it got support just because of canvassing. The article is in a very strong position, it doesn't need canvassing. Please, reach a consensus. Thank You. That's it.— Prashant 21:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I understand. It would be a good idea to add your apologies at the FAC nomination too. Graham Colm (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have apologized to both Crisco and Brain on the fac page and I'm ready to apologize 100 times more. But, my question is that will all the accusations and unwanted post will remain on fac or be transferred to the talk page of the article? Because, it has nothing to do with the FAC. That's all. I want to tell you again and have told both Brain and Crisco that my intension was pure and I was not knowing that it will create an oppose. I didn't asked support from neither of them nor anyone. I just said to look at the fac and make constructive comment. My aim was not having support from both of them. But, the constructivecomments. See, Victoria has put several constructive comments for the further improvement. I think it was unfair what they did as they could have told me directly that it will ruin the fac. Once I got to know about they have no interest in reviewing it, I didn't aked then again. But, they created that oppose. Its heartbreaking as I came to Wikipedia just to take that article to FA. I wish everybody was like Blofeld and have understood my I tension and my childish behavior. — Prashant 02:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the archive. I have nothing to complain as my behavior was very immature. I apologize for that. You did your work. I promise you that I would never ever let that happen again. I have asked for advice from my colleagues and I really want to learn from my mistakes and overcome them. For the article, may I re-nominate next week as we were planning it to appear on 18 July on her birthday. I think many issues were resolved in that fac. So, the third and hopefully the last fac would be complete by first or maybe second week of July and we could go ahead for Main Page request for 18 July. What do you think? Moreover, I will definitely change my outlook towards things and you will never see this. Thank you for a lesson which would help me in my real life also.— Prashant 02:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Please wait two weeks before renominating to allow time for the dust to settle. Graham Colm (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'll wait.—☯ Prashant  20:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Precious again
  featured content

Thank you for reviewing and promoting articles to featured articles. I hope to live long enough to see the precious one (with a history) on the Main page ;) - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 159th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style. - As we know by know by now it took only a week for it to happen, now Kafka is scheduled (thank for promotion and support!), miracles seem possible, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to FAC comments
Hello, a GOCE member has copy-edited the article per your request here. May you revisit and comment if the GOCE member has satisfied your concerns? Best, jona  talk to me  19:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Graham, if you could re-review that'd be great so I can determine consensus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed this reminder. I have revisted now. Graham Colm (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Quest for Sarnia FAC Nomination
Hi, Graham. I am hoping to ask you some questions and get better answers that the condescension I received on the nomination page from Nick-D. First of all, I looked at other featured articles for cities larger than Sarnia and noticed that I have nearly double the number of references and citations than they do. I am then told I have not sourced enough. What are they doing that I am not?

Secondly, I wanted to ask how to get people to do peer reviews. I listed Sarnia for peer review before, and no one said anything. Maybe that was my mistake? I should just keep listing it for peer review until people answer me?

Third, why are those who do evaluations allowed to condescend to people? I've put nearly 150 man-hours into the Sarnia article and Nick-D dismissed it without answering questions except to say "If you don't know, you shouldn't be submitting this for featured article status" or "No, I will not answer you." I was polite and asked for examples, and his attitude was "there are so many I have no time to list them all." Well, if he is one who does evaluations, then he should make the time to do it correctly. If my article was not up to snuff, so be it. I will continue to work on it; HOWEVER, I do not appreciate his attitude.

I WILL appreciate it, however, if you give me some pointers and/or direction. Thank you for listening to me vent. I look forward to hearing your advice. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I agree with both of the reviewers. There are numerous facts in the article that are not supported by citations. For example:


 * One of the largest grain elevators in Canada rises above the harbour, and next to it is the slip for the numerous bulk carriers that are part of the aforementioned 100 million tons of shipping.
 * Large pipelines bring Alberta oil to Sarnia, where oil refining and petrochemical production have become mainstays of the city's economy. Shell Canada, Imperial Oil, and Suncor Energy (Sunoco) operate refineries in Sarnia. Large salt beds found under the city became a source of chlorine and other significant ingredients in the success of Chemical Valley. Chemical companies operating in Sarnia include NOVA Chemicals, Bayer (Lanxess and H.C. Starck), Imperial Oil, Royal Group Technologies, Cabot Corporation and Ethyl Corporation.
 * Also, one of the last thirteen remaining Canadair Sabres in Canada is on display as a memorial to Canadian aviators who gave their lives in World War II.
 * Sarnia does not have any network television stations of its own, although the city does have a community channel, TVCogeco, on Cogeco, along with several rebroadcast stations from Detroit, Windsor, and London, Ontario.
 * Past mayors of the city have included Andy Brandt, Marceil Saddy, Paul Blundy and Thomas George Johnston.

And there is a bare URL at th end of here:
 * Sarnia does not have any network television stations of its own, although the city does have a community channel, TVCogeco, on Cogeco, along with several rebroadcast stations from Detroit, Windsor, and London, Ontario.

The article has not been finished to FA level and hence the opposition from the reviewers. Graham Colm (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being both constructive and civil, Graham. Now I can get to work! I truly appreciate your help. And, for the record, I also agreed with the reviewers to a large degree; I just disagreed with Nick-D's manner. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * FA status is all about professionalism and the high standards we try to maintain. Nick-D's review was very helpful. Please don't let his advice fall on stony ground because of perceived bluntness. Working with experienced reviewers is the most efficient route to FA. Graham Colm (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Point taken, Graham. It is not going to fall on stony ground, believe me. I've just corrected all the problems you just listed. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Graham. Just a note to tell you that I've taken the reviewer comments and run with them, making some needed corrections to Sarnia. If you have some spare time, could you take a look at what I've done so far? I have worked at raising the grade level using readability-score.com and have gotten most of the article up to grade 11 or 12. Some sections are even at a grade 16 or 17 level. I have added many more citations too. The reason I left some citations out is because I was told back when I first started my mission to get Sarnia to GA status that I should not cite things that were linked to existing Wikipedia pages that already had citations on them. Now, I think I have most of the citations done. I'm going to be going over each paragraph to determine if any sentences are unsourced. Right now, I think I have 170 or 180 references on the page.

I also wanted to ask your opinion on the following topic--
 * Should I take the Name and history sections and condense them and then create two separate wikipedia pages for those sections? I sorta don't want to do that, but if you think it would be a help to achieving FA status, I will. Let me know. Thank you in advance for any help you are able to provide. Sincerely, There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Cochrane
We appear to have free access to Cochrane. I'd just assumed I wouldn't as so little is free. So you might want to remove your name from the list. Colin°Talk 11:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't know this. Thanks Colin. Graham Colm (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Virus history
I am adding comments to the talkpage Brianboulton (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brian, I saw them. I'm at work now, but I'll respond later. Graham Colm (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment
Hello! Your comment on the fac was strange. I (everyone) know what happened at the last nomination. So, what was need to post a warning of archiving? With due respect, (I may be wrong) but you told me that let the dust of the last fac settle but, you yourself spread the settled dust. I know that you thought that I should not do that idiotic thing again but, I myself will not do that again. So, posting that comments was not a good idea. I know what can be consequences of pestering. I was not going to do if you didn't have posted that comment.— Prashant 15:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Graham's a delegate Prashant, he can do what he likes. I understand your perception of the situation though Prashant and wanting to wipe the slate clean. I think Graham just wants to make it very clear, and that means comments directed at him too Prashant, it isn't your place to tell Graham what he should or shouldn't write. Please never question something Graham or Ian does again, it is usually for a very good reason...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  16:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm just worried over that post. I didn't point fingers to anyone's rights. I know that is their work and they knows everything what is good for fac. But, there was no need of that post as I was never going to pester anyone. I had marked his words from the last fac. So, this post was not needed. Anyway, I just wanted a clean fac without talk about the previous one as bygones are bygones, there is no need to mention those things again. There was no need to say that as nobody was going to do anything like that seeing my fault at the last fac which result in failing.— Prashant 17:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a link to the previous FACs at the top of the nomination page, which most reviewers will read if they haven't already done so. This thread is an example of the type of pestering that should not occur. If the nomination is successful, I will remove my comment. Graham Colm (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ya, that link will always be there. I'm not against the past history, just was worried. But, as you said you'll remove after the success. Thank you. I hope the article passes soon. :)— Prashant 17:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Now please go away. I get emailed every time this page is edited, and I am busy with other things. Best wishes. Graham Colm (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Social history of viruses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iron lung (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy note
Hi Graham, I've started an RFC on proposed adjustments to the governance of the featured-article forums. Tony  (talk)  11:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Coagulation
This is a quote from WP:MEDRS, which you send me to:
 * //Sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline.//

And?

Are you really sure that so respected edition as “Physics-Uspekhi (Advances in Physical Sciences)” is cannot be accepted for “identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline”? Or you believe, perhaps, that researches, which have been performed in Haematology Research Centre under the guidance of such well-known scientist as Ataullakhanov, are not correct?

--Andy Quarry (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The addition was poorly written, didn't make sense, and does not belong in the Lead. Graham Colm (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Is your language not poor also? And who are so holy to evaluate sense? If an author contributed his own picture for some article, this fact do not give him any privilege for considering the article as his own property. Note, that the article belongs not only to clinical medicine, but also to biology in whole, including biophysics, biomedicine, nanomedicine and so on. Hence, if you will persist in your opinion, the subject of our conversation will be presented for public discussion of the Wiki-community. --Andy Quarry (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Coral Island
Hi. Surprised to see it not promoted. Can I ask if it was Eric's blocking which prompted it? Ah I see, Drmies sent an email request to close it, a pity.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  17:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Drowning Girl FAC
I see 5 articles were promoted today, but not Drowning Girl FAC, which has 3 supports, an image check and a source check in its 30 day under review. What gives? Can I nominate Whaam! now? I am working towards a 9/28 50th anniversary for that work and would like to get the FAC started.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't finished going through the list yet. I noticed that Ian was archiving/promoting at the same time and I didn't want any edit conflicts. WRT your nomination, I see this minor problem:


 * Bader, Graham, ed. (2009), Roy Lichtenstein: October Files, The MIT Press, ISBN 978-0-262-01258-4 Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBader2009. Graham Colm (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What about the Whaam! nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, but please mention this conversation in your nomination statement. Graham Colm (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

New user
Just so you know at FAC I'm the artist formerly known as Dr. Blofeld. Am editing under this account at least for the near future. Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 19:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Request
Could you please respond to my request here? Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Graham Colm (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi GrahamColm
In case you didn't know, I have nominated "S&M" for FAC once again. It is the tenth nomination. I have collaborated with the co-nominator on the article, and it has been through a Peer Review, of which several people who are experienced with the process gave help. As you opposed my sixth nomination, I would appreciate it if you would re-read the article and give your opinion on how you feel about the article now over at Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive10. Thank you. — AARON  &bull; TALK   10:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Whaam! FAC archiving
has raised concerns that the archiving of Bus Stop's comments was an attempt to have the issues he raised "swept under the rug". You may want to address this. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not concerned. I am trying to write an article. Let's stay focussed. Bus stop (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not the one who raised the concern. Modernist was.  Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't archived the discussion; I moved it to the Talk Page. We have done this at FAC with very long discussions many times. Graham Colm (talk) 05:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, everyone involved knows it's on the Talk Page. It wasn't characterized as an "archiving" in the actual FAC—that was only me here on your Talk Page fudging the vocab.    Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

FL Nomination for List of AFC Wimbledon seasons
Dear Graham, thank you for your help regarding my featured list nomination. This is my first time submitting one and I appreciate your help. with kind regards, Jodie25 (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. Transclusions can be confusing. Graham Colm (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Perseus (constellation)
Hi mate, have you had a chance to revisit this one lately? I gather it's been copyedited since you raised your prose concerns... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, I still have a few concerns, which I have raised at the FAC a few moments ago. Graham Colm (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1
I sort of understand your reasoning behind closing Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1. However, once upon a time and, would at times immediately restart a nomination that was getting muddled. In this case, we have a very special potential 50th anniversary WP:TFA on September 28th. I understand you have granted special exception for a one-week relisting. However, that still cuts things very close in terms of trying to achieve WP:FA in time. Is it possible to request immediate relisting or a much shorter window such as 48 hours. After over 350kb of discourse during the FAC, expecting a resolution on the talk page with no process to encourage people to come to a decision is a little much to ask. This article needs a FAC to force people to crystallize their opinions and this candidate needs to be relisted ASAP in hopes of achieving a 50th anniversary. This 350kb+ FAC is a very special case and should be given special consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (EC) I considered a restart, but decided that a cooling-off period was needed. I will allow 48hours rather than a week. Please link to this discussion when you renominate so folk know. Graham Colm (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: social history of viruses
This is a note to let the main editors of social history of viruses know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on August 18, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/August 18, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The social history of viruses describes the influence of viruses and viral infections on human history. Epidemics caused by viruses began during the Neolithic period. Having been hunter-gatherers, humans developed more densely populated agricultural communities, which allowed viruses to spread rapidly and subsequently to become endemic. Smallpox and measles viruses are among the oldest that infect humans. Having evolved from viruses that infected animals, they first appeared in humans in Europe and North Africa thousands of years ago. Louis Pasteur and Edward Jenner were the first to develop vaccines to protect against viral infections. The nature of viruses remained unknown until the invention of the electron microscope in the 1930s, when the science of virology gained momentum. In the 20th century many diseases both old and new were found to be caused by viruses. HIV is the most pathogenic new virus to have emerged in centuries. Although scientific interest in viruses arose because of the diseases they cause, most viruses are beneficial. They drive evolution by transferring genes across species, play important roles in ecosystems and are essential to life. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Rockstar 101
Hi Graham, Following your comments on the Rockstar 101 FAC, I've done some copy editing on the article. Could you have a check to see whether you still consider this to be in "oppose" territory, or whether there is a chance that this could go through (albeit with further edits)? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Schro, I have replied there. Graham Colm (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's great, many thanks. I only did the ce as a favour, so it's good to see it cleaned up. I have helped the same nominator with his other article, S&M, which I think everyone has seem going through a few times. Can I ask what else you would like to see happen on the review in order to bring it to a close? It's got six supports, and has cleared the source and media reviews, but there are still a couple of reviews that have been dealt with but not moved to support from the reviewers. If you could point out any further steps that can be taken (on an entirely independent and advisory manner only) I'd be more than happy to see what I can do. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I requested spotchecks yesterday. Graham Colm (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's great, many thanks - I'll sit tight and wait! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC
There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Million Award
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:TFAR nomination of Whaam!
Given your active participation in the first of two recent WP:FACs that resulted in the recent WP:FA promotion of Whaam!, I am informing you of a discussion that you may want to take part in at Today's featured article/requests.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Graham. Just wanted to thank you for your advice on "Love the Way You Lie", which is now an FA. I'm really grateful. Thanks. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  18:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Penguin, congratulations on the FA. You are too kind. I recall my making just a few comments a long time ago, but I'm glad that they were helpful. Best wishes as always. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War/archive2
Why was this not promoted? Can you point me to the discussion were this was decided please. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just butting in, the FAC delegates don't generally discuss promoting or archiving among themselves, they make their determination on whether or not there's consensus to promote an article based on the FAC discussion. In this case I'd agree with Graham that there was no clear consensus among the various reviewers to promote, and given the nomination had remained open more than six weeks, it was time to archive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is bollocks, the one uninvolved person who commented supported it. Counting FPaS vote is a joke, the guy hates me FFS, Faz oppose was a joke. Either this gets reappraised post haste or I IAR and nominate it again. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I archived the nomination because after six weeks there was no consensus to promote. You can renominate the article in two weeks time. If you renominate earlier the nomination will be immediately archived. If you want to engage in our FA process you have to stick to the rules or discuss exceptions elsewhere. Graham Colm (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Reconsider
Hi Graham, I believe your closing of the FAC at Featured article candidates/Frederick Russell Burnham/archive1 was premature, and I advise you reverse your decision and leave it open for a while more. The editor is making active efforts to address the issues raised, and though it is a slow process, I believe it is a steady one; there is only one oppose vote and four support votes (full disclosure: including mine). Your comments and concerns can be addressed by the editor, and the other oppose vote had all her specific concerns addressed is now making vague WP:IDONTLIKEIT claims, absent specifics, which to me suggest anal-retentiveness at best, and possibly a personality conflict per WP:AGF at worst. Montanabw (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The problems noted by Graham are further examples of the issues I raised with citation formatting a month and a half ago. My specific examples were addressed, my specific concerns were not. There is no personality conflict per se, more a frustration about edits and responses missing the forest for the trees. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well Nikki, it seems to me that the editors over there are making a good faith effort to address these issues. I must say that even ** I ** don't really understand what you think is wrong with that article, all your first set of issues appear to be addressed.  Maybe take one section of the article where the problems are particularly bad and "fix" it to demonstrate what your concerns are - or perhaps insert instructive hidden text to show precisely what problems are where ...   In my case, on the recent FAC I had that you reviewed, I it put up with a "bring it on" attitude. B ut I'm stubborn as a mule when I really want something; not all wikipedia editors are that tenacious.  When you reviewed that FAC, I was consistently quite frustrated with your "now children, there's a problem but you have to discover it for yourself" approach, which is at best a failure to communicate clearly, often comes across as quite condescending, and at worst is playing head games with people (which I hope is not your intent). It was quite tiresome to keep asking you to explain what you meant by some of your more cryptic comments, though, to your credit, you were able to clarify when I asked. So, thinking about my own experience, my feeling is that so long as edits are being made, good faith is still there, and progress is occurring, it makes no sense to close a FAC simply due to the length of time it's taking, so long as there is movement.    Montanabw (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article can be renominated in two weeks; this will give the nominators ample time to fix the remaining issues. Graham Colm (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't mean to be condescending or play head games, but a) I tend to find overexplaining more condescending than underexplaining, and b) in this case I'm not sure how I might have clarified the problems beyond providing an endless list of examples, and I've been slapped in earlier FACs for treating the review like a PR. Any suggestions? Fixing it myself is fine for formatting things, but trickier when it comes to nuances of phrasing, neutrality, and accurate reflection of sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe reassure them of this, Graham. @Nikki, Hm, I've sometimes been unable to tell the difference between an FAC and a PR myself, frankly, so for that I wouldn't sweat it; if there are fixes needed, there are fixes needed.  While it's good to get FAC-experienced reviewers to do the PR, sometimes it's hard to get good PR folks and so the FAC goes up and stuff missed in the PR gets noticed.  That said, sometimes you can get yourself bogged down in stuff that isn't in the MOS and becomes a judgement question, not a substance question.  As for the issue of explaining things, my experience dealing with you is that you can be "cryptic," and at times vague - you probably make sense to you, but not necessarily to others (which we all do at times) ... I guess you can still be you, but realize that if people don't seem to be "getting it," then go into more specificity detail.  Condescension is often averted by making "I" statements rather than "you" statements.  (As in, "I found it awkward to read the first paragraph of section X, I would find it more readable if you put the information in chronological order." That gives me a sense of what your concerns are, while something like "you need to redo section X, it's hopelessly disorganized" would sort of piss me off, because if one preps an article for FA, they have seen the text soooo much that it all it looks perfectly fine.).  Nuances of phrasing is something hard to explain, but if you feel there is a POV problem, specifics help and aren't that difficult (as in "section Y has a lot of extra adjectives like "amazing", "marvelous" and "brave," which make it sound somewhat unencyclopedic and more like a promotional piece.")   If you feel sources are not reflected accurately, that can be specifically explained too.. (as in, "you cite source X for [subject's] statement "this was great," however, source X says "I sarcastically said, 'this is great', thus the source appears to say exactly the opposite of what was written here. ") I'm kind of making up ideas here, but perhaps this helps.   Montanabw (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If they are committed to getting the article to FA level, they won't need any reassurance from me. I fixed a few things in the article, but I could not fix the page ranges and the other odd reference. The other issues raised need to be addressed by the nominators. With regard to your questions to Nikki, she does a lot of essential work at FAC on most nominations, and like many of us, has to ration her time. I don't want to put words into her mouth but you should not confuse an editor's rationing of their precious time with being cryptic and vague. Nikki's reviews  have become a key element at FAC and her concerns are taken very seriously. You are right in saying that FAC is not PR and this why we do not expect or ask  reviewers to list every problem. Please do not confuse a desire for professionalism with condescension. Often a thick skin is needed by FAC nominators, but taking on board seemingly harsh or nit-picking criticism and then acting on it, is what makes that little star valuable. Graham Colm (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nikki takes plenty of time with any FAC I've been involved with. Please keep in mind that I've been involved with well over a dozen FACs of my own, usually second whip, but occasionally first.  My experience with FAC is that reviewers in fact DO list every little problem!  LOL! (And that excludes the damn trolls that show up occasionally)  And if they don't, someone else often swings by the day the FA is nominated for TFA and whines that the FAC wasn't thorough enough, that there should be a FAR, yada, yada, yada... I'm probably going to nom one of my FAs for TFA next spring and I dread the nightmare process it's going to be... !  (big sigh...)  But all is well, the article author let me know that they are not discouraged and they are going to keep plugging away at it. Which is a relief - we are driving away too many content editors.  I wish some folks (not you two in this case) would remember WP:DONOTDEMOLISH; there's a lot of work to do...  Montanabw (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for a this. I am glad that the nominators have not been discouraged. Graham Colm (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they are taking the long view, which is good. Looks like they will rework and renom. I remember being so discouraged during one of my early GANs that I damn near quit due to snotty tone and trolling attitude.  Wish there was a rule against a blanket "oppose" right off the bat, very discouraging and tends to generate hostility. Kind of what happened here. A through review often exposes legitimate concerns. I've often found a generic peer review to be worse then useless; my best results have been seeking out specific editors with FAC experience to do an informal PR instead.  Some general PRs have attracted a lot of damn trolls -- remember one of Ealdgyth's articles, some idiot really wanted her to say that a stallion was a boy horse.  J--eus Ch---t almighty... :-P   Ok, just ranting and venting now, all's well, carry on.  Nikki and I are discussing melonheads at her talk, all's well. :-)  Montanabw (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Sarnia FAC
Now that the discussion has been archived because only a couple of people participated, one of them being me addressing their concerns, what is my next move? What is the generally acceptable guideline for re-nomination? There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, the article can be renominated after two weeks from the time the bot closes the nomination. Graham Colm (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Graham. If you would, and have the time, please take a gander at Sarnia and let me know your thoughts. Because the FAC review is now archived, you can put them on my talk page if you want. I would appreciate it. There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Prashant!
Hi Graham. You might remember this difficult editor who abused others during the first Priyanka Chopra nomination? Well, he's persisted to carry on insufferably and has abused Vensatry on his talk page and other talk pages which went unnoticed at the FLC for Priyanka Chopra filmography. A few days back he demanded that Rambling Man pass the Chopra list on the day allocated by him. Rambling Man quite rightly cannot make a decision based on how much the list has changed and according to him no longer has the power to pass or fail it anyway. Prashant in response, thinking he'd failed it, left this disgusting message on my talk page here blaming me for its failure and mocking my constructive edits and posted this to Rambling Man in which he calls Rambling Man's comments at the FLC a "joke". In response Rambling Man has suggested that he refrain from the process again. I made constructive edits dialing down the tone here and it would have failed anyway because he'd reinserted the fluff. Given his track record with FAs and the way he treats people when he doesn't get his own way and the way he addresses editors on their talk pages during the process, I was wondering if you think a ban from featured articles and lists would be feasible? He has serious issues with ownership and self-glorification which are incompatible with the FA process. Good faith editors don't deserve to be abused by him at FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Applause please for Blofeld's story. Thank You! So, it is your conspiracy against me. Topic banned?? Why I should be topic banned?? If you see the comments before Blodeld's unwanted intrusion at the flc, you'll find I was resolving every comments contructively with smile and got 4 supports. Then came vensatry and Blofeld's unwanted intrusion. He is behaving as main contributor. I don't have an ownership problem, you have blofeld. I was worried about your never ending claims to prove that that you are the contributor. I also mentioned not to stetch the discussion but, he was putting effort to prove his contribution.

@GrahamColm If the price of hard work and continuous improvements of articles is ban then go for it. I have contributed to many articles and will till I want as I love Wikipedia. And want to contribute more. But, These kind of conspiracy threats me. Also, I didn't said Rambling Man's comment as joke but, I said that about re-nomination and his comment that supports are expired and are invalid now. Which I think came to his mind after Blogeld proved that his version was far better and previous version, which got all supports was gone. It's Blodeld who has got me into trouble. I don't interface in anyone's work. Try to understand, he is trying to be a hero. Also, I'll take care that I should not repeat this. By the way I posted that on their talk page and not on flc and those behavior are counted if my outburst was on the flc. But, blofeld has posted about it on the flc, which says that he want to be portrayed as a hero.@— Prashant 14:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Prashant, seriously. Do you not remember how Chopra's FAC was almost derailed because of your comments at other people's talk pages? The same can happen here. Why is this on Graham's page anyways? A topic ban would require wider consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes it would require wider consensus, but I was asking if Graham thought that the weight of Prashant's actions were enough to ban him from the FA process. He's incredibly childish and even now he continues to see it as a rivalry and conspiracy thing. The fact of the matter is that his list version failed straight off first time and would have done so again but for the appropriate edits I and the others made towards toning it down to help him promote. He did a lot of work answering the posts at the FLC and was obviously the main contributor to the article, but unfortunately in his effort to appease the cruft crept back in again. Rambling Man expressed concerns about the tone and said it would fail, so I once again edited it for neutrality and just clarified with the other editors which version they supported. Unfortunately Prashant sees this as some sort of "stealing my thunder" and has again assumed the worst in people who were trying to help him and improve the article with constructive criticism and copyediting. I don't think he understands that featured articles are generally a collaborative effort even if there is a main contributor,and he seems to care more about himself being seen as the sole contributor then he does about helping it pass. FAC is a place of much criticism and many people will often oppose articles, but if he reacts like this to people who are trying to help him let alone oppose him, I really don't think he should be involved in the process.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I deserve more than others as I have few more FL and articles prepared for nomination. I'll definitelytake care of that.— Prashant 17:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "I deserve more than others" - That's certainly not helping you... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is twice that this behaviour has been evident: firstly at second FAC for Chopra, and now the FLC for the actress's work. There are a lot of unhappy people about the various shenanigans on display by Prashant over his featured candidates. - SchroCat (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Pks1142/Archive is the past SPI. I'm really sure it's a sock, but I've asked for a CU to be done and the results should be in soon. --Rschen7754 22:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Ghost of Sparta FAC
It has received the source and image review. -- JDC808  ♫  21:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

C-SPAN at FAC
I just noticed that you archived my nomination of C-SPAN at FAC. I realize it was an older nomination, and perhaps there hadn't been a new comment on it in the past 48 hours, but this was still being reviewed and worked on by myself and and others. This is only my second time at FAC and the first time I've had an article archived, so I'm curious whether this can be revived, or whether I will have to resubmit. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 20:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, the nomination had been running for a long time but there was no consensus to promote it. I suggest you continue to work on the article and renominate 14 days after the bot has completed the archiving process. Best wishes, Graham Colm (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, got it. I'll keep working on it and resubmit when ready. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

FAC question
Hi. You recently archived my nomination of Of Human Feelings, and I've posted at the FAC talk page about it. I hope I'm not out of line with it, but here it is. Dan56 (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

O Captain! My Captain!
It can't be pending changes and indef. semi-protected at the same time. Unless temporarily semi-protected, having two indef. protections is awkward. --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Changed. Thanks for alerting me to this. Graham Colm (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible recommendation for a GA wikipage to upgrade to FA status
Hi GrahamColm. Your user page seems to indicate a featured articles background which may provide good editing experience for related articles. I am thinking of recommending a page upgrade for a GA article to FA article status which may involve the reading of one book review if this might be possible for you. The book is the popularly received "Evil and the God of Love" and involves a science of theology approach. Any possible interest? AutoJellinek (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Tungsten/archive1
Hi Graham, Are you likely to close Featured article candidates/Operation Tungsten/archive1 this weekend, or are you waiting for more reviewers? I ask as I'm going to be overseas for three weeks starting next weekend, and won't be able to monitor the review and work on the article, so it's now or never if I need to round up more reviewers! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick, I think it's ready to close but just wanted to have a quick squiz (still in my capacity as delegate) beforehand -- will likely do that today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

A question about FAN
If an article was nominated for FA, but the nominated was closed simply because of lack of comments/supports (as was the case on "The Unnatural" and "Home") is there anyway that they can be renominated earlier than the two-week period since there isn't anything glaringly (as far as the comments go) wrong with them? I just thought I'd check with you.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   03:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have the same question. The lack of comments in the Peru national football team article FAC page does not accurately reflect the quality of the article. I mean, compare it with Scotland national football team (the only other FA national football team in Wikipedia). How early can I re-nominate the article?
 * This issue of little voting has already afflicted the article in its two most recent FAC reviews. The article has changed very little in either case.
 * Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 03:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi - and my apologies for the late reply to Gen Quon - as the list of candidates is not too long at the moment and since both articles received little feedback, please renominate them as soon as you want to. You might want to link to this conversation in your nomination statement. Let's hope you attract more reviewers next time. Best wishes. Graham Colm (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Graham.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding FA nomination
Hello,

About a month ago, I nominated the article AdS/CFT correspondence for FA status. Since then, I've gotten a lot of helpful comments from other editors, and everyone has been quite supportive of the project. However, it's been a week since anyone left a comment, and I'm not sure that there will be more comments unless I recruit more people. Please let me know if there's anything I need to do to make sure the article gets the attention it needs. I wouldn't want it to be archived just because there weren't enough reviews.

Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Question
May I ask you a question? Thanks.  Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  15:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. But this is not instant messaging. Graham Colm (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, but I just wanted to make sure I could I ask you a question. It is about this. Why it wasn't promoted? I mean, Wasted Time R fixed what they say, what is wrong. Can you give some suggestions? That was my first nomination so I am a little bit lost here. Thanks.  Miss Bono  [hello, hello!]  15:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, the promotion of an article to FA level requires a consensus of opinion from reviewers that the standards have been satisfied. Deciding if this consensus has been reached is made by the FAC coordinators, either individually (most often) or following a discussion (rarely). Sadly, there was no consensus on this occasion. I suggest you and the other editors continue to work on the article and renominate it again later. A peer review might be helpful. Graham Colm (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

2nd Nomination Gone Wrong
Hello, GrahamColm. Since you're are a civilized administrator around here, I figure that you could respond to this. Today, I recently nominated Avatar (2009 film) for a FA nomination, and I notified the most active editors about it, including, who has a strange theory of requesting for the discussion to be closed because one of the following reasons: "I didn't consult the most active editors", in which includes for that matter. Honestly, I didn't know what he/she meant by that, as I was trying to figure out, does it mean notifying the most active users (in which I have already did), or to discuss the matter with all of the active users editing the article? In which, I would like to request that nomination should be putted on hold until further notice.  Blurred   Lines  16:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it a strange theory when what you are supposed to do is stated at Featured article candidates? Maralia is currently not one of the editors of the Avatar (2009 film) article. If you look at Maralia's contributions, you will see that Maralia works at the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates page (especially its talk page). Maralia is not the only one who agrees with me having reverted you at that page; one of the editors there thanked me via WP:Echo for reverting you. And by the way, with regard to your "civilized" implication above, I am quite civilized on and off Wikipedia; my responding to you about this matter the way that I did, as shown at Featured article candidates/Avatar (2009 film)/archive2 and at my talk page, should be understandable to anyone very familiar with the WP:Featured article process; it is not as though I acted wholly inappropriately. Flyer22 (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes you did wholly inapporiately, as you were biting me because I didn't dicuss this with anybody, and just cutted to the case by nominating it. By the way, I did not say anything about the FAC being a strange theory, I said your comments that you made was a strange theory. About the Maralia part, I didn't mean by it made edits to the article, I meant that it agreed to your point that you made on the nomination. Yes, we all users can be civilized on and off, but for me, all users should be civilized at all time, even if they don't agree with something. Also, just being curious, could you name the editors that thanked you via WP:ECHO, that would be appreciated.  Blurred   Lines   17:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if your feelings are hurt, but Flyer22's reversion of your nomination was in accordance with procedure, and he has not in any way been uncivil.
 * This is the third article I've seen you nominate (the others were at FAC but moved to FLC, and at GAN) that you had not significantly contributed to yourself. While that is allowed at GAN, FAC and FLC have different requirements. The instructions say "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." The reason for this is touched on in the next sentence: "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly"—which verges on the impossible for someone who has not contributed to the article and is therefore not intimately familiar with the prose and the sources. Merely notifying the significant contributors does not equate to consulting them. Since you apparently don't have the familiarity to respond to reviewer's comments (and do so in a timely fashion), and the significant contributors have not agreed (or even been asked) to take on the work of doing so, this leaves no one to handle concerns raised in a detailed review. The instructions carry this requirement mainly to avoid wasting the time of reviewers, who put many hours into working through article issues with nominators.
 * You would likely find these assessment processes more accommodating if you would familiarize yourself with the instructions, and nominate articles to which you have made significant contributions. Maralia (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When you mean by consult, do you mean by convincing a experienced user who has most edits on that article to nominate it to featured article?  Blurred   Lines   18:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who actually pushes the nomination buttons: the FAC won't proceed without the ongoing participation of a significant contributor to the article. The top contributor has said he is not ready to do so at this time. It is difficult to understand why you would want to convince someone to take over the nomination; don't you think they would have done so already if they felt the article was ready? Maralia (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but the nomination still gives a chance for it to be a featured article by users telling what needs to be fixed, and the nominator fixes it without any problems regarding to the problem that a user stated. By the way, the question you asked, Well, if a random user calls it for withdrawn because the nominator was not much active in participation of the article, someone who's more active has to take over it, otherwise, it would be speedy closed by an administrator. Also, Consult does mean to discuss with the most active user to the article to promote it to featured article by nominating it, right?  Blurred   Lines   18:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we have a language barrier here? You don't seem to be understanding me, and that last post of yours is really incomprehensible. No one has mentioned administrators except you. The nomination has already been closed, when it was removed from WP:FAC.
 * If you think an unfamiliar nominator could 'fix' a FAC 'without any problems', I invite you to read a recent FAC review of a film article to get some perspective on the time and effort involved in FAC reviews. Maralia (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I understand you very clearly. The reason I mentioned administrators is because mostly they handle the FAC nominations whether it should pass or not, and I don't think just because it was removed from the FAC list, doesn't mean that it's cancelled, it's been putted on hold.  Blurred   Lines   19:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maralia, thank you for explaining matters to Blurred Lines. Nope, Blurred Lines, I cannot agree that I acted wholly inappropriately in this case. As for biting, I was not aware that your Blurred Lines account registered with Wikipedia in July 2013 and that you therefore qualify as relatively new to editing Wikipedia. However, those initial edits you made during that time do not look like newbie edits to me. Either way, I was not referring to WP:BITE when I mentioned my comment coming across as biting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Avatar (2009 film)/archive2; I meant the definition of biting that refers to a cutting remark, such as here or here. And, yes, I know what you meant by "strange theory," and, like I replied, "How is it a strange theory when what you are supposed to do is stated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates?" It clearly says "consult"; I'm not sure how you took that to mean "Notify them that I've nominated the article for featured article status." As for the editor who thanked me WP:Echo, hopefully, the editor doesn't mind me mentioning her here; I don't want her to feel pulled into any unnecessary drama; that editor is ‎SandyGeorgia. And I am female, by the way, as stated on my user page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently I have made my decision, I'm gonna withdrawn the request, and wait for a couple of months, then I'll put up a peer review about whether it can finally be promoted to a FA status.  Blurred   Lines   21:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm certain that not much will change with regard to this article in a couple of months. I won't be ready to go through with a FA review then either; not sure about the other main contributors with regard to being ready. And any suggestions made during peer review to improve the article that I do not agree with are suggestions that I will likely protest. And, of course, you should still consult with the main contributors before nominating the article for FA. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Protesting to a problem to make the article better isn't going to get nowhere, I mean, it's best to just listen than just argue (or as you say, protest) to the editor who is just trying to make the article better by discussing what needs to be done, and just being curious, when exactly do you think that the article should be in an FA nomination, as I am trying to consult you.  Blurred   Lines   22:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not need a lecture on what makes a good or featured article; I am quite aware of what makes one. Like I already told you, "It should go without saying that FA reviews are stressing/frustrating because substantial changes are made to an article at the suggestion of other editors, often substantial changes that are not needed and are more so or solely personal opinion." This means that what is considered a problem is often personal opinion. The WP:GA and WP:FA processes are not about doing anything and everything the reviewers state. Neither is peer review. If it were, the main contributor(s) to the article would not usually be so important with regard to the processes. Listening is one thing; agreeing to any and everything is another. As for nominating this article for FA, when I or one of the other main contributors are interested in that and make that interest known among the group, and especially if there is no objection to it, that is when the article should be nominated for FA. I have enough articles that I am focusing on at the moment, and will eventually be nominating for GA; I would rather not have to (or more accurately, "feel the need to") deal with the Avatar (2009 film) article in such a substantial way any time soon ("soon" also obviously covering a couple or few months).


 * On a side note: As I am currently watching this talk page, you don't have to keep pinging me to this discussion. I am also done discussing this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As I am too, because this conversation is going nowhere, and I think that we have made our senses very clear to each other enough.  Blurred   Lines   23:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Blurred Lines. I am sorry for coming late to this; I have been out all afternoon. Before GrahamColm, Ian Rose, and Ucucha were the FAC delegates, I served in that role for four years. I thanked Flyer22 for her edit because when other regular participants do routine tasks that help the delegates, the whole process benefits. I am appreciative when other editors help with the routine, normal functioning at FAC, and I have been dismayed for quite some time now that the community hasn't been helping out as it once did. The information that Maralia and Flyer22 is giving you here is correct. I hope that helps, and I'm sorry if there were ruffled feathers, but everyone has your best interest, FAC's best interest, and the article's best interest in mind. The need to notify regular contributors is codified in the WP:FAC instructions for a number of good reasons, and has been there for a very long time. By the way, you've also expressed some misunderstanding about the relationship of adminship to FAC functioning: I was a FAC delegate for four years, and I am not an admin. Maralia, btw, was one of the editors who most regularly helped me with routine things at FAC. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Withdraw FAC nom
After consideration of some of the reviewers comments, I feel I need to withdraw the nom for Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl to allow it to go through a copy edit. I also dropped this same note at the other FA coordinators talk page. Thanks, GregJackP   Boomer!   17:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn this FAC (and manually archived it, since the bot still doesn't recognize my process-closes as valid). Thanks for letting us know, Greg. Maralia (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Maralia!, that was three watchlist entries that could have been one (post withdrawal requests to WT:FAC).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Test FAC coords ping
This is a test notification -- let me know if you see it in "Your notifications" at the top of the page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Ian, if you're posting on his talk page I think he'll get the notification from that. Maybe a third page? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it depends on how sophisticated notifications is -- for instance I was notified of this msg but I have Graham's page watchlisted anyway -- since you're obviously interested (!), how about you try it from your talk page (which I don't have watchlisted)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Tried. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and succeeded (for me at least) -- tks Crisco! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Seriously?
Why again? Archiving my FAC for Of Human Feelings. It's THanksgiving weeknd, you seriously couldn't give ppl some time? I asked several to review, some of which said they would (User_talk:Sabrebd, User_talk:Hzh). WTF is the rush! I don't know what the process is, but it cant be set in stone. Cant it be "unarchived"? Do I seriously have to wait again and bother ppl with requests for comments again b/c of some BS technicalities? Dan56 (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ermm.. a less aggressive request might have persuaded me. There is no need for profanities. First, wrt your comment on the FAC page, I do have a life, a very full and busy one. Second, I have little idea what Thanksgiving is and certainly didn't know it is this weekend. Your nomination failed to attract sufficient reviews in a reasonable time. That's why I archived it. One of our "BS technicalities" says None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions. So as this is the case, I think you qualify for an exemption. Graham Colm (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Request use of Clotting Cascade image
Dear GrahamColm, I am publishing a book "Pediatric Surgery - Diagnosis and Treatment" and respectfully request to use your illustration "Clostting Cascade" with attribution. I have viewed the Creative Commons license but wish to inform you of my work. Warm regards,

Chris Coppola cpcoppola@geisinger.edu Villac (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Villac


 * Yes of course you can. But do you mean this one File:Classical blood coagulation pathway.png or this File:Coagulation in vivo.png? Graham Colm (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Revert
Wondering why? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See you corrected it :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

FAC request
Hi, can you comment on this nomination when you find time. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  12:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)