This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ajpolino. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Plasmodium
Hi, I appreciate the work you are doing to improve the article. Just wondering if the Ebola section truly needs to be tossed into the ashcan. I'm no specialist, but in all likelihood that bit of research is inspiring further research into the effects of Plasmodium on immunity.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Quisqualis:, yes sorry I should've done more to explain myself! This is a good example of why primary sources are generally poor for encyclopedia articles. The original paper suggesting that malaria was protective for those with ebola made a big splash, generated some news headlines, and was added to the Plasmodium article (though really malaria or ebola might have been more reasonable places to add it, since it doesn't have much to do with the hundreds of parasites that make up the genus Plasmodium). Six months later, another paper came out suggesting that for patients with ebola in Sierra Leone, having malaria made them more likely to die. A third paper also came out indicating that in Guinea the same was true: malaria infections made ebola patients more likely to die. So the current picture is unclear, although the preponderance of evidence is probably leaning towards malaria infection making ebola worse.
So anyway, sorry for being long-winded; but this is why I removed the paragraph from Plasmodium. It's a great example of why we should avoid using primary sources to support bold claims in articles. Primary sources are often hot-off-the-press research that can go on to be contradicted, built upon, or validated. Until an expert has looked over the evidence and written a nice secondary review, it's probably best we be patient and just write about what is accepted. Anyway I hope that helps clarify why I rudely snipped out that paragraph. Let me know if you have questions or suggestions, I'm happy to talk about this (or anything else) more! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Glad you chased this down to its final conclusion. I agree about primary sources. Reminds me of a paper in the late 90s which found that shining blue light onto the skin of the posterior side of the knee joint would reset the circadian clock. Easy thesis to test, which many did, with predictable results. There apparently is no "fourth eye" behind the knee in humans.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Proposed Deletion of Oceana Rain Stuart
Hello Ajpolino, I'm replying to your recent post on my talk page regarding the proposed deletion of the Oceana Rain Stuart page. The article has been updated with new, referenced information that substantiates a case for her notability based on the guidelines you provided. I'm hopeful that you'll agree that under the Part 4c and d guidelines, Stuart's notability is sufficiently covered. I'd also like to remove the notability template inserted in November 2017, which would likely be satisfied if the deletion proposal is satisfied. Please let me know if you agree. Thank you for your help in making this a better article.
Pdtompkins (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Can you help?
A user has copied an image from Heather O'Rourke's IMDb page - File:Heather O'Rourke.jpg and put it in her article. I have it on good authority that neither the photographer nor Getty Images want it used because of their copyright and commercial rights. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
O F Mueller link
Hello Ajpolino This is GDZ Will you check it. Maybe I am doing something incorrectly.
Perhaps it is possible to link directly to Mueller's paper.Best regards and thanks Notafly (talk) 07:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Plasmodium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello (human here) - there's very little wrong with the article, but I've made a couple of suggestions in the review. I'm glad to see serious and major articles like this at GAN. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: Thanks for taking the time to look it over! I'll be able to get a start on your suggestions in a few days. Any other suggestions on how it can be improved (including outside the scope of the GA process) are most welcome. Thanks again! Ajpolino (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Busy in real life these last couple weeks. Your comments are much appreciated. I'll get back to the article ASAP. Thanks again for your help! Ajpolino (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the review, as an Afc reviewer, I know this is not right but can I also get the Sun Plaza (Singapore) reviewed, should be a short one as all notability is met or else it can never be live. Thanks a lot =) --Quek157 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
In Regard to your comment about my earlier edit, the only reference I've used as of yet is the sports ref, and my own ideas. If you feel as though any information presented lacks credibility, feel free to remove it. I tend to start articles like this, and come back to them later to put some flesh on the bones that I've set up. Going forward, I encourage you to have free reign in fact checking my contributions if they can't be supported by any cited reference or source. Thanks for your concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitmissgoodnogood (talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Hitmissgoodnogood: Thank you for the comment. I see you're a relative new-comer here, so welcome! If you run into questions or concerns as you continue to create and improve articles, feel free to ask here (although you'll likely get a quicker reply at WP:TEAHOUSE or elsewhere)! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Herbert Strongeagle: August 1, 2018
re: problem with language used for Strongeagle article, I have removed some quoted content about how valuable his community considers him and removed
content that I thought was required: that told why he is worth documenting in wikipedia. It wasn't encyclopedic enough for you in language and you also felt it was a selling job. Feel
free to check it out and comment again. Please remove your comment if it is now within the bounds of acceptability. Thank-you. Squirrel2017 (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Squirrel2017:, thanks for the message! Sorry for the slow response. The article looks better! Two things:
The beginning of the article remains a bit confusing. Wikipedia articles generally begin by giving the reader a very simple explanation of who/what the topic of the article is. As an example, see the Martin Luther King Jr. article... Perhaps the Herbert Strongeagle article could start with something like "Herbert Strongeagle was an NHL scout and advocate for First Nations athletes participation in professional sports".. and then move on to the part about how he is considered a stereotype-busting role model and has been recognized with a number of awards.
The sections on Herbert Strongeagle's life are currently bulleted lists (though without the bullets). If you're willing to continue to develop the article, it would be super if you could turn that into paragraphs of prose (again see other biographical articles for examples). If you don't have the time/interest to do so, that's no problem, let me know and I'll take a crack at it!
Also I'm glad to see you removed the tag after attempting to address the problems in the article. You have every authority to remove tags as you see fit. You don't need to wait around for some bum like me to get back to you. Anyway, I hope that feedback is helpful. Welcome to Wikipedia! If you have any questions/concerns as you get used to the place, feel free to ask and I'll help however I can. Also you can ask for advice/help at WP:TEAHOUSE. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to attend the 15th St. Louis Wikipedia and WikiProject Meetup. We are doing a quick touch-base to gather current interest and make a plan for more regular meetups in the future. The meetup is next Thursday, August 16 from 5-6 PM with more structure and from 6-7 PM social time. This all takes part during Venture Cafe's Thursday Gatherings at Cortex in the The District in St. Louis. There are free drinks. Please do visit 15th St. Louis Wikipedia and WikiProject Meetup and add your name if you plan to attend. THANKS :)
Hey! I just wanted to inform you that I moved your request to desalt a page from WP:ANI to WP:AN. The Incidents noticeboard is only for behavior problems. The main Admin noticeboard is much more appropriate for this kind of issue. Thank you. funplussmart (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Many Thanks to you, Ajpolino, for your reviewing of 23 August 2018 on my first article, Hideroku Hara, and also for your encouragement and offering support that is needed for sure. I have to make sure the points to be improved if possible. FM0788 4 September 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FM0788 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Hi Ajpolino,
I just took a workshop at WikiEd to learn how to create content for WP and I'm especially interested in women scientists as you noted. I had not noticed a microbiology project and have signed up since a good many neglected women are in this field. If you know of some I should work on, suggestions are welcome.
cheers, Laura LLMHoopes (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
It happens ... and luckily someone picked it up this time; but in general, the more we can catch before it gets into mainspace the less cleanup there is to do there afterwards. That article still needs work – the refs in the "awards" section don't all support the statements made. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ajpolino,
I also worked on Winzeler's article as you had suggested, along with someone else. Later Justlettersandnumbers deleted the works cited, which I have re-added based on what other women in science articles have included and my WikiEd teacher's advice. Cheers, Laura LLMHoopes (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@LLMHoopes: Roger that. Yes there doesn't seem to be much widespread agreement on what the norm in academic articles ought to be (especially since available sourcing is generally sparse). Thanks for the time you put into that article! Let me know if there's anything I can help you with! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Page review
Hello!
I don't usually do this, but there's no harm in doing it. Thank you for reviewing my pages on New Zealand awards. Are you able to check if my other article I created, Bev Watson, has been reviewed? Looking at my notifications, I can not see where someone reviewed it.
@Nat965: Hello! At the I'm writing this, Bev Watson has not yet been reviewed. You can check yourself by clicking on the "View History" tab for each page, then click on "View logs for this page" in the top-left. For 2011 New Zealand bravery awards, you'll see that the log shows when you created the page, and when I reviewed it. For Bev Watson, the log only shows your creation of the page. You'll also get a notification when someone patrols Bev Watson (and a talk page message if they have any comments they want to transmit to you). That said, I would advise page creators not to worry about when their pages get patrolled. It's just a system to ensure a second set of slightly experienced eyes hits each new article at some point after its creation. The current backlog of unreviewed pages reaches back to September 4th of this year. So it might be a while before Bev Watson (created 7 Oct) gets reviewed. Or it could happen while I'm writing this post. Just depends on when reviewers stumble upon it. Hope that helps clarify! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Review of 'Emily Balskus' page, Oct 25
Hi Ajpolino,
First, thanks for the time spent to review my nascent attempts at page-craft on Wikipedia. I know it's time out of your day to do so.
I am having a tough time striking the right balance between content and notability on the platform. On the one hand, prose scientific recaps usually have primary and secondary citations to back them up, which gets me the template message "This Page Relies too heavily on Primary Sources!" When I tone down the prose and focus instead on awards and differentiators, I get the feedback that I should have more prose!
Could you offer some sage counsel on striking the right balance, enough to get people onto the platform (Women in Science, in the targeted case of my fellowship) but doesn't saddle you with editorial concerns?
@Tarselli: Hello! Thanks for the message. Unfortunately, sage counsel is not my domain. But I think you've found one of many unresolved issues with our current set of rules, guidelines, and expectations. Theoretically, a topic only merits an article if it has received significant coverage in several independent reliable sources. These several sources can then be used to craft a reasonable encyclopedia article, and all is well with the world. This scheme starts to break down with academics, where due to generally scarce sourcing surrounding academia, we've decided that academics merit an article if their work has been highly impactful to their field. For better or worse, we usually determine this based on how cited their work is. Of course, having substantially cited work doesn't guarantee that one will be the topic of substantial coverage in independent sources. So we're left with the unfortunate situation that for many academics, we know they're influential and impactful, we want to maintain an encyclopedia article on them, but there just aren't many good sources on which to base an article. Instead editors are often left recapitulating the academic's CV or writing a summary of their research based on the primary research papers (both of which would be big no-nos in any other context). As best I can tell, there's no easy way around this. You just have to sigh, accept that crafting articles on academics is inherently challenging, and do the best you can to make useful well-sourced articles with the sources that do exist. If folks push back on your creations, just keep in mind that they mean well... Anyway, sorry to be the unhelpful pessimist here. I'm glad to see another scientist spending time on the site and improving coverage of scientists! If there's any way I can help with your work here, please let me know. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, remember me? I was wondering if you knew where Faint little ball could be linked from, to de-orphan it? Since you did some of the other orphaned Drosophila genes for me last year I thought you might be able to help with this one, too. Also, thanks for taking care of Oculosida! It's been on my to-do list for awhile but I'm glad someone who knows what they're doing got to it first :) ♠PMC♠ (talk)13:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Premeditated Chaos: Hello again! I'm glad to see you're still fighting the good fight. Good find! Drosophila biologists never cease to amaze... I'll get a chance to work on this in the next few days. Thanks for bringing it here! I love a good cell signalling mystery as much as the next guy/gal. Happpy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Ahh, you're the best. If you're bored sometime, there's 9 more Drosophila-related orphans in this PetScan query if you're interested in taking a swing? No pressure of course. ♠PMC♠ (talk)07:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
In brief, the issue is that until recently, virus taxoboxes almost always had a virus group as the top level, as per this version. However, in the ICTV 2018 system, taxa from family upwards have members in more than one virus group, so this approach often doesn't work. An alternative is as per this version, where the top level is just "Virus" and the virus group doesn't appear in the taxobox. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ajpolino. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
