User talk:Ajpolino/Archives/2019


PTS1R vs PEX5

Hello! Came across PTS1R while de-orphaning. Should it actually be merged to PEX5? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos:, yep! They are one and the same. Good catch! I'll merge them this evening if you don't get to it first. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I've done it :) Thanks for your help, as always! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bot

Hi! Appreciate your work in achieving consensus. The RFC went very well thanks to your initiative. I'm on board to see it through now consensus is clear. The reason for writing is there is a good possibility this BRFA could sit for a while, possibly even months. A new BAG operator will have to read through and take it up and they might not do it when postings and emotions are still hot. HB leaving mid-way is not the first time there is a pattern when things don't go as he wants, but his leaving is probably a positive. I am trusting this epic BRFA will close with time once the right people become involved, they always do eventually. -- GreenC 16:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Ahh the above is already outdated, some good people on the case, more soon. -- GreenC 16:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:107.77.225.173

A tag has been placed on User talk:107.77.225.173 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles (re: Village Pump)

I see you like backlogs. Unreferenced articles thwart the encyclopedia, because they go to credibility. If the encyclopedia were merely free and not credible, it'd not be used. 182K uncited articles, 3% of the encyclopedia's 5.8M articles, is too large to manage by manual effort. If we had a taskforce of 10, and cited one article per 0.5 person-hour, and we all worked 40 hour weeks, we'd cite 800 articles per week, and the project would take 4yrs and 4.5mos during which time our day jobs would not be done!

So, what can be automated? There are bots to rescue dead refs; any help there? Can an article be auto-refed? I don't see how. Most unrefed articles can be readily sourced online, but getting page numbers, etc. is a highly discriminating process. Only a small fraction of articles are candidates for deletion by the normal process - it won't help the backlog to do those. I actually saw on a redirect page to the Category page, that "this category should be empty most of the time". Yeh? So we agree it should be empty. I hate cleaning up other people's dirty laundry. I will ref things in my areas of expertise, because I probably have the books in my library.

Any ideas what we can do here? Sbalfour (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sbalfour: Agreed. I don't mean to be small-minded, but I've not yet come up with a clever way to automate referencing the articles. I think the best way we can multiply our efforts is to (1) rope in more people willing to help, and (2) grab unreferenced articles by topic, and ask active WikiProjects to help out. For example, if you spent a few minutes with various versions of "[Search term] incategory:All_articles_lacking_sources" you could probably relatively quickly assemble a list of medical unreffed articles, and drop it on WT:MED for help. The disambiguation project seems to have followed that approach with some success. Also I find that if I ask editors who created recent articles without refs to add a ref, they usually comply. So that can be fruitful. Originally, I started with the oldest unreffed articles, trying to move the back of the backlog up. I found that to be fairly inefficient and soul-deadening, so I don't recommend that for any but the strongest of heart.
As an aside, the bot mentioned at the VP discussion will run some time in the next month or so, and we expect another 10,000 unreferenced articles to be tagged (based on the test runs and the exclusions programmed into it). So don't be surprised when the backlog suddenly jumps a bit soon. If you've got other ideas or anything, I'm all ears and happy to help! Thanks for reaching out! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

FR30799386's User Scripts

Dear all. Recently, FR30799386 (talk) was blocked for sock puppetry. Among their projects were a number of user scripts that they left behind. I (DannyS712) have copied the scripts, and have taken over maintaining them. You currently import one or more of FR30799386's scripts, and I thought that you might want to import a maintained version. Links to each script are provided below.

If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

CDCa1

Hey, wondering if you could help with de-orphaning CDCa1? I can't tell where it's supposed to be on Chromosome 1 and I don't want to put it in the wrong place. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done That was a weird one. It looks like it got created at the wrong name somehow. The article and all the refs were about C2CD4D, so I moved it and linked it. Now the infobox finds the correct Wikidata gene, but the "human" info all displays info about the gene in rats instead of humans... Not sure what that's all about. Anyway, good find! Sorry I still intend to take a look at your Drosophila gene orphans you sent along a while ago, but have been distracted. I hope all is well! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, you're fantastic. No rush on those other ones! I just figured I'd toss them your way for a rainy day. Hope you're doing well too! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for microbiology!

Thank you for the offer! I would love it if you could lead me to some pages that need work. Thank you! Aven Az13 (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aven Az13: Excellent! Here is a list of all pages that are tagged with some maintenance template, and also tagged as relating to microbiology (i.e. they have the WikiProject Micro tag on their talk pages). Where you start depends on your comfort with microbiology topics, access to sources, et al. If you'd like to stick your toe in the water slowly, you can start with some of the technical problems like pages with bare URLs, pages with various link issues, and the citation formatting errors. If you'd like to jump in more quickly, there are hundreds of articles with {{Citation needed}} tags, or where someone asked for clarification. As you click around and find things you're unsure how to deal with, please feel free to ask! I'm happy to lend a hand (like I said, it's a big world here with lots of norms and guidelines). Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh! Also, the list doesn't update in real time. It updates once a week when a bot runs. I think the run is on Tuesdays. Ajpolino (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging the copyright violation on Ellen McGrattan and for the explanation you left User talk:Fibrouscashew81 about it. You mention a "grey area" around copyrights held by regional Federal Reserve Banks. In fact, the regional Federal Reserve Banks aren't fully agencies of the US federal government (see Federal Reserve#Legal status of regional Federal Reserve Banks) and so the usual public domain status of works by federal agencies doesn't apply to them. Wikiacc () 22:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wikiacc: Thank you! You learn something new every day. Yet another copyright quirk to keep in mind. Thanks for the explanation! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Following up on this: according to commons, public domain does apply to the regional Federal Reserve Banks, despite their intermediate legal status. Nonetheless, the source page for the alleged copyvio still claims copyright. This is far more confusing than I expected—it seems "grey area" is the right descriptor after all. Wikiacc () 19:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Wikiacc: Ah, well how about that. Not sure what to make of all that. I haven't seen any other researcher profiles lifted word-for-word from their website since, but if it becomes a problem maybe we can all scratch our heads about it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Thanks again for the update! Ajpolino (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


CRM domain

Hi! This is the last article in Category:Orphaned articles from August 2011 and I can't figure out where to link or merge it. Any idea where I can put it? Cheers, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Ehhh not my finest work, but I've been on an academics kick recently so I went for the unorthodox route and made a stubby page for the academic who coined the name. Hopefully someone else comes along to pretty it up. Happy de-orphaning! I'm telling you, some day I'm going to sit down and de-orphan those Drosophila genes. Let me know if you get to a point where you're waiting on them to clean a category! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Damn you went the extra mile! That's awesome, thank you. I'll definitely give you a shout if the Drosophila genes become a problem :) Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics

I have no objection to closing down this project. I am currently mostly working on wildlife pages. Cheers Dger (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2006–07 ISU Short Track Speed Skating World Cup, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wang Meng, Zhou Yang and Li Ye (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 14:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

New bot testing

Hi Ajpolino, I pinged you at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GreenC bot 17 but wanted to follow up in case the ping didn't go through. Seeking your help to run the bot on 60 pages. Try it with "BOT=RUN 1" see what happens. -- GreenC 19:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Great! Just started a trial run. Thanks a million! Ajpolino (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

excellent article creation history

You've been doing excellent work for several years, and it is obviously no longer necessary for your new articles to be checked at New Page Patrol. I've therefore given you hte"autopatrolled" userirght--you will see no differences, but it makes it easier for the new page patrollers to check the articles that do need it. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: Roger that. If I have any particularly dumb article ideas that require an extra set of eyes I'll reach out for help. Thanks for the note, and happy patrolling! Ajpolino (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thanks for working on the Mistagged unreferenced articles cleanup list. Every bit helps make a dent on the backlog! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Brian R. Murphy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brian R. Murphy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian R. Murphy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Discrete nanoscale transport

Hi, me again :) Wondering if discrete nanoscale transport is a legitimate concept, or something that one researcher coined and sort of tried to promote on Wikipedia? Searching on Scholar and ResearchGate pretty much only shows hits on papers by AT (or TA) Dinh from 2006 & 2008, and there's nothing on ScienceDirect. I'm thinking of AfD/PROD, does that seem right to you or am I missing something? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I skimmed the 2006 paper. Seems like a neologism that never caught on. The rest of us would just call it Intracellular transport. Seems like a non-controversial deletion candidate (or you could redirect it, but seems an unlikely search term...). Weird find! Thanks for bringing it here :) Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clostridium tetani

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Clostridium tetani 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) 12:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clostridium tetani

The article Clostridium tetani you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Clostridium tetani for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Folate GA

I asked the reviewer to hold off restarting the review until after Friday, so please jump in if fixes or tweaks needed. David notMD (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: Thanks, I've had a bit of time this afternoon to read up on folate. For what it's worth, I would move the section "Function" before the section "Health effects", and I'd use the current first paragraph of "Health effects" (which is all about the biological function of folate) to start off the "Function" section. In its place, I'd start the "Health effects" function with something like "Having too much or too little dietary folate has been implicated in various health problems... bla bla bla...". I would also merge the "Chemistry" section into "Definition" (as a second paragraph in that section which, as you said, readers can skip if they're disinterested). I think that would help the article flow better. Since you seemed firmly against switching the section order, I'm sitting on my hands. But thought I'd share my $0.02 anyway.
The "Metabolism" and current "Function" sections need to be de-jargonified and made more clear. I'm not sure if I'll have enough time to scrape through them completely this week, but I'll certainly try. Once Canada Hky starts going through the article again, I'll steer clear so they're not concerned about stability, but am happy to help with any specific comments they may have. Thanks for all your work on this! It's certainly much-improved! Ajpolino (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
@David notMD: I went ahead and moved the chemistry paragraph. I hope that's not objectionable (I also very slightly tweaked the wording in the section in a way I hope adds clarity for the reader). Ajpolino (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep local

Hi Ajpolino, you should not use template:Now Commons on files with template:Keep local as you did here and here. The template says the file can be deleted, but usually "keep local" should be respected. The patrolling admin should spot this, but the file can be mistakenly deleted as happened in one case here. Thanks, SpinningSpark 20:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Whoops! I figured folks would see the keep local template and realize it didn't qualify for CSD F8. Guess not. I see now you can add the Commons file name to {{Keep local}} as Magog did here to change the template wording from "This file may be available..." to "This file is available...". Lesson learned. Sorry for the inconvenience! Ajpolino (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Enabling

No, it's not too soon. I'm tired of men coming in and saying its not her time. You are holding this article to an outrageous standard, and enabling sexism. Whether you accept that or not, it doesn't change the fact that you are an enabler.Schlossbergfes (talk • contribs)

@Schlossbergfes: Hi there, I've taken the liberty of moving this comment to the bottom of the talk page, which helps me to organize this page. I hope you don't mind. I'm sorry that you feel that way. But you are mistaken. This article is about a postdoctoral researcher working in molecular biology. You won't find articles on other postdocs in biology on Wikipedia (unless they've been covered in some truly exceptionally unusual way), regardless of their sex. If you think that is the wrong way for us to run an online encyclopedia, you are more than welcome to start a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics), Wikipedia talk:Notability, or find more experienced editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red who could help you draft a proposal to change the way things are done around here. No rules are set in stone. As it stands, your interpretation of the first criterion of NPROF is out of line with the way it is typically interpreted. Telling other people that you are right and they are wrong is not going to change that. Nor is pointing out your laudable desire to address gender bias on Wikipedia. If there's any way I can be of assistance as you move forward here, let me know. Ajpolino (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


An invitation in your email

Hi, just a gentle reminder that I have sent a Wikipedia email to you. Regards! Cerevisae (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)