User talk:Ajpolino

Archives

2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

Hi - thank you for your review at Talk:Louis Isaac Woolf/GA1, I greatly appreciate the help!

Please could you help me move File:Dr Louis Woolf.png to Wikimedia Commons as it doesn't seem to be working for me.

Thanks again! GnocchiFan (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's now at c:File:Louis I Woolf 1972.jpg. Let me know if you need a hand with anything else. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewers Award
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I'm seeking additional feedback on ways to further improve the article. I want to work on the article to get it to FA-Class eventually. How specifically would you say I should approach this? I don't think there is much more I can add to the article without making it overdetailed. Strange Orange (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Strange Orange, I'm glad to hear you're interested in the FA process. Bringing an article through FAC can be very rewarding, and engaging with the FA process is a nice way to hone your writing/editing skills. A couple of years ago, SandyGeorgia (who introduced me to the FA process, and helped usher me through my first FAC) wrote this essay on the topic. Perhaps you'll find some useful perspective there.

Now for a slightly pessimistic take. For better or for worse, I think not every topic is well suited to FAC. For "niche" topics that haven't attracted much scholarly interest, it's challenging to generate enough well-sourced material to satisfy FAC reviewers that you've met the "comprehensive" criterion. In an effort to get comprehensive, you may need to pull from less-than-ideal sources, which reviewers may take issue with you relying on. You can see an example of this at Trisomy X and its FAC. Vaticidalprophet put an incredible amount of work into building a great article – no doubt the most comprehensive resource on the topic – but faced reviewer skepticism based on the tension above.

If your personal interests are broader than BF syndrome, I might suggest starting by bringing an "easier" article through FAC, perhaps a genetic disorder that's common enough to have attracted more copious source material? If not, I certainly understand that; we should all write about what we're interested in here. If you'd still like to take a crack at bringing BF syndrome through FAC, let me know and I'm happy to do my best to give useful feedback and connect you with folks who will help you in your efforts. If you pick another article for your first FAC, ditto the above. Either way, best of luck in your efforts. Happy editing. Ajpolino (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification[1], are you also opposed to the links that go to related articles in Prostate Cancer? Those would essentially be a violation of INFOBOXPURPOSE based on the same reasoning that's been outlined in the INFOBOXPURPOSE discussion. I just limited the question to biographies since that's where the dispute originated. You cited Nikkimaria who says linking to section is the same thing as linking to a related article, so that's why I wanted to clarify. INFOBOXPURPOSE isn't limited to biographies, if these links are prohibited it would likely affect all infoboxes. Thanks for your feedback! Nemov (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your point. If there are links in the prostate cancer infobox that go to a subsection of the article, that's unintentional. I'll check later when I have a moment. The infobox of that article summarizes the major points of the article. It has wikilinks only to give the reader quick access to articles on terms they may wish to learn more about. It would stand just fine without those wikilinks. The Beethoven example at that discussion has |works= List of compositions. That would be like if the prostate cancer infobox had |symptoms= List of symptoms. It's silly whether that link points to a subsection of the article, or to a separate article. Nikkimaria merely pointed out that those two cases (subsection vs. separate article) shouldn't be treated differently. Am I addressing your concern? Ajpolino (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't about linking to a subsection of an article. It's about liking to a related article from the infobox. I could have just easily used the infobox from the prostate cancer article as an example of an infobox that links to another articles. Maybe I should remove the Beethoven example if it's confusing the question. Nemov (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe you're conflating the positions "infoboxes should not link to lists of works" with "infoboxes should not contain wikilinks". I think infoboxes should summarize the article they're at the top of. Saying Beethoven's works are "List of compositions" is not a summary. Saying he died in "Vienna" is perfectly fine with me. Ajpolino (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not conflating, I just don't understand how awards/works/family go against the spirit INFOBOXPURPOSE. Thanks so much for your time responding to my silly questions. I greatly appreciate it. Nemov (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. |symptoms= List of symptoms is silly. Your questions are, of course, welcome. Ajpolino (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dracunculiasis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dracunculiasis for comments about the article, and Talk:Dracunculiasis/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Prostate cancer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Prostate cancer for comments about the article, and Talk:Prostate cancer/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Femke -- Femke (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on the page Breast cancer is vandalistic. Please refrain from making edits of similar nature. Thank you. Fenharrow (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fenharrow, you're mistaken. I'm updating the article breast cancer. That sometimes involves trimming old and WP:UNDUE material, in addition to adding new material with new references. I've been a regular editor of medical articles here for many years now, and have recently been working on various cancer articles: I overhauled lung cancer last year, and prostate cancer is currently at WP:FAC. Those are the cancers that cause the first and second most deaths in the world; breast cancer is third, so it's up next on my list. Perhaps you'd like to revert your edit, or check those other articles for vandalism as well? Ajpolino (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Apologies. Happy editing, Ajpolino! :) Fenharrow (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I understand large loss of text can look concerning. Thank you for your quick reply. Ajpolino (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there :). You may have noticed we're preparing ME/CFS for FAC. It's definitely not as polished as your pre-GAN prostate cancer, and I've never brought anything medical to FAC, so I might be off-kilter in places. If time allows, I would be much obliged if you could leave some feedback :). (Of course, the invitation is also open to talk page watchers). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be happy to. Glad to see another medical article getting spruced up. I'll try to find time this weekend. I don't know much about ME/CFS (fortunate I haven't had to learn, I suppose) so I'm looking forward to the read. Ajpolino (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

Hello Ajpolino,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ajpolino. A recent contribution to Breast Cancer has lead to a sfn/harv error due to the source not being in the bibliography. You had put "sfn|Hayes|Lippman|2023|loc="Inherited germline susceptibility factors", did you prehaps mean for the date to be 2022? Thank you, Thecowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 13:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, exactly that. Just fixed it. Thanks for catching my mistake. Ajpolino (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Prostate cancer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 1.2 million people are diagnosed with prostate cancer per year and 350,000 people die from it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prostate cancer. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Prostate cancer), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]