User talk:Ajpolino/Archives/2016

Board reliability resolution
Hi Ajpolino. Thanks for your comments on meta regarding my proposal. I have responded there. I hope I have addressed your concerns. Let me know. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC
 * Thanks for the quick response! I appreciate the more explicit listing of the benefits you're looking for. I'll comment again on the noticeboard tomorrow afternoon. Thanks again. Best. Ajpolino (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Help with the orphans
Hi Ajpolino, thanks for showing me the list 228 microbiology articles. I hope I can help you with the orphans (I didn´t know ther where so many). Daniel-Brown (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead for gram-negative bacteria much better now!
PaulTanenbaum (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Bartonella thermacidophilum = Bifidobacterium thermacidophilum
Hi Ajpolino, I think the artikel Bartonella thermacidophilum is doubled, but it´s spelt wrong in the first place, because there isn't a species which is called Bartonella thermacidophilum. But there is a species which is called Bifidobacterium thermacidophilum Daniel-Brown (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh. That's weird. I'm not sure how those both ended up being created. Now, unfortunately if you Google Bartonella thermacidophilum you get a bunch of hits which are all copied from the erroneous Wikipedia page. I blanked Bartonella thermacidophilum and changed it to redirect to Bifidobacterium thermacidophilum. That way if anyone stumbles upon the record of the old page online, they can be redirected appropriately. I think that solves our problem for now. Good find! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Haiti cholera outbreak
The article Haiti cholera outbreak, which is linked from the paragraph, has all the references.

I don't know what Wikipedia guidelines cover this, but I've always believed that external references are unnecessary if the subject in question has an article which has those references (and that article has been linked). Otherwise you end up with a) a lot of repetition of references, and b) the chance that the subject article itself has a superior level of references that grows over time while the orphaned reference on another page may end up becoming dead or out of date.

One Salient Oversight (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Gram
Some do not capitalize Gram because they are either lazy or agree with the citations in the main article. I believe it is named after a person, so should be capitalized as a sign of respect; other citations agree. How is Gram stain different from gram positive? 66.61.83.123 (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk page. Ajpolino (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!
Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Chlorobium tepidum -> Chlorobaculum tepidum
the Chlorobium genus was split into two or three separate genera c.f. http://ijs.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/ijs.0.02403-0 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Undef&id=191412&lvl=3&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock

of special note is the type species of Chlorobaculum - Cba. tepidum Pagelm (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I see that leaves us with a bit of a mess. I'll try to sort out the Chlorobium/Chlorobaculum pages later this week. Let me know if there's something else I can help with. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

List of places in Antarctica
Hello Ajpolino.

Dear fellow orphage carer.

I refer to your recent article creation of List of places in Antarctica. I must admit that while this is a different approach I feel that it is not a good one. Sorry.

By the way, it itself has now attracted an orphan tag !

More importantly though, it will be very misleading as to relevant places in Antarctica and their relative importance, and it does not add any encyclopedic value if it just a collection of some otherwise orphans. We might as well have a category Category:Orphan articles related to Antarctica. A better approach would be to bundle up related articles into lists under a relevant header article, for example Mount Atholl would be in a list in the article Denton Hills. This is more work but it is massively more useful I suggest. See also for example Tula Mountains (which is what I did there).

Cheers. Eno Lirpa (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Aye, my friend. Your point is well-taken. Work in progress. Thank you for the note. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hello Ajpolino. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.


 * Please let me know if you'd be interested in having rollback. While you don't conventionally qualify for that user right (no counter-vandalism experience), you display a lot of the same skills needed for the right (attention to detail, positive interactions with new users, etc), and I'd be willing to grant it. Rollback can be helpful for new page patrolling, especially if you tag a page for speedy deletion and the author repeatedly removes the tag. ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it! Thanks a bunch! I'll start sinking my teeth into the NPP feed and I'll let you know. Thanks for all of your help! Ajpolino (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Influenza vaccine 'adults'
You reverted to a previous edit... did you read the review? I quoted from the review word for word but you think the other content more accurately portrays the review? Well,?i didn't delete the info that was there I only added the authors conclusions... how can you possibly justify removing the authors conclusions? seaniz (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the message. I just posted a justification on the talk page, I hope you'll find it agreeable. It appears you may have strong feelings about the usefulness of flu vaccines generally. That's fine; no one here will begrudge you your opinion. However, as you know, Wikipedia doesn't exist to flesh out The Truth. Instead we are writing an encyclopedia that will reflect the mainstream general consensus on various topics. While there certainly has been growing evidence that seasonal influenza vaccines are not working as well as we would like them to, the mainstream consensus is that influenza vaccines are flawed but generally useful. Many people have a vested interest in improving flu vaccines and not wasting money on useless interventions (e.g. insurance companies) and so if evidence develops that flu vaccines are indeed useless, the mainstream consensus will slowly shift to support that. At that point, we will eventually get around to changing the Influenza vaccine article (though based on how little we pay the editors here, it might take a while ;) ). Anyway, I hope you don't get too down beating your head against the other editors here. There's plenty that can be done to improve the encyclopedia while avoiding topics that make your blood boil (I also have topics I avoid because they end up as useless time sinks and I end up annoyed). Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. All the best! Ajpolino (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, just a quick postscript, many of the medical editors here may seem gratuitously rude and that can be extra frustrating. Just remember that they are also genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia and they mean no ill will. Besides, they don't know what you posted on the talk page, they can't read :) ! Cheers Ajpolino (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A post-postscript (I know, annoying). I'll be off-wiki for the next few hours while I dabble in real life. For what it's worth, I'd recommend letting Influenza vaccine cool down a bit before anyone's heads explode. Also I saw your userpage and have questions about sourdough. Do I need to buy a starter culture? Or can I just leave out bread mix until it turns? I'd rather do the latter but I'm afraid it'll taste like socks, or I'll die (or both). Any guidance is most welcome. Ajpolino (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Ajpolino for such a human response! I don't have a problem with vaccines or even the influenza vaccine, however, I have discovered a great deal of information pointing to their (influenza vaccines not vaccines in general) lack of usefulness. You are, of course, correct that this is not Wikipioneers so some of the overly negative changes I made were rightfully redacted ... However, I was VERY surprised when the Cochrane Collaboration study on healthy adults was used, and honestly it was misused, to support vaccinating adults. I can definitely live with the current way the article is worded. Very good compromise on your part, Thank you! It looks like I'm going to have to let the influenza vaccine page rest for a while anyway as I have no editing access to it at the moment. I'm a bit surprised that I didn't receive any notification about that, by the way.

Sourdough! There is no need to buy one. All you need is some good whole grain flour, some water and patience. I highly recommend that you explore making sourdough from scratch as it is very rewarding! Don't be afraid about the safety aspect. The only way we knew how to raise bread was with sourdough (until about 400 years ago) and sourdough has a history that can be traced back thousands of years. It is VERY safe and just as satisfying.

Please feel free to write for advice on my talk page or on yours (I think I will get notification if you tag me in a new discussion ...). seaniz (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Sourdough Starter
1 teaspoon whole grain flour (organic and fresh is best but not essential) 2 teaspoons water (non-chlorinated without chloramine, if possible but once again not essential). 1. mix in a small non-metal, non-plastic bowl or jar. 2. Let it sit for 24 hours at room temperature covered with a secure coffee filter or a tea towel (use an elastic to keep the bugs out). You want it to breathe. 3. Feed: add 1 teaspoon flour and 2 teaspoons water and mix 4. 24 hours 5. take out half and use in pancakes, etc. Some people compost it. 6. Feed: add 1 teaspoon flour and 2 teaspoons water and mix 7. repeat for 5 to 15 days 8. When it looks bubbly and smells wonderfully ripe and fruity (smell about 2 to 4 hours after feeding as it will smell like nail polish remover after 18 to 24 hours no matter how good it is) add in enough flour to make a small firm dough (not too sticky) and give it 12 to 24 hours to rise. 9. if it doubles in size within 12 to 24 hours (it might do this in a shorter time period) then use this as your starter for your FIRST SOURDOUGH.

I prefer the 'whole in' approach. Many sourdough bakers keep a jar full of the stuff and pop it in the fridge where it lives and then take out a pinch to raise a dough .... but I prefer the old-fashioned method. My method: take the whole starter (Yup ALL OF IT) and mix it into a dough for bread. *Don't add salt yet.* Allow it to rise for 12 to 18 hours (it should roughly double in size). TAKE OUT A PINCH (1 tablespoon suffices) and save this for your next bread dough. Add salt to the bread dough and shape the loaf. Allow a second shorter rising period 2-8 hours. Bake!

The pinch that you saved can be stored on your counter on a bed of flour where it will dry and keep for 1 week or more without refrigeration. After 1 week of not using it... feed it and refrigerate or store it as above for a week. Feeding: match the starter in size with flour and double water. For example: 1 tablespoon of starter should be fed 1 tablespoon of flour and 2 tablespoons of water. Time: depending on your climate you may need to shorten the rising/feeding times. I live at 53 degrees North and the above timings work great for me but I'd halve those timings or even shorten further if you live in a tropical climate. Enjoy and please feel free to ask for advice, recipes, whatever. It takes a fair bit of practice and patience, but sourdough is well worth it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaniz (talk • contribs) 10:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Before I forget I should mention that at least 5% of your flour should ideally be whole grain rye (as fresh as possible). I use 20% for all of my bread. Rye is supposed to have an invigorating effect for the sourdough and let's just face it rye is sooo good anyway.seaniz (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds relatively painless. I'll give it a try this weekend and let you know how it turns out. Cheers! Ajpolino (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Spaw Sunday
Hi. Thanks for the encouragement about the new page I posted. Could you give me some guidance about the "reference templates" that you mention? I'm more than happy to fill them in but need to know how to begin doing this.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmberry (talk • contribs) 10:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi ! Good question! As you seem to have noticed, we often make our references using so-called "reference templates" which look like this:




 * Spaw Sunday has several references filled out in this format. If you look at my edit to the page, you can see that I edited one of the references you had added. You had added the URL and accessdate of your reference; I added the title of the article ("Walking makes you well, on Spaw Sunday"), the date it was published ("8 May 2012"), and the publisher of the article ("The Guardian", which had previously been listed as the article title). So to fill out the reference templates, you just need to edit the page and to each reference, add the title of the article, the author (if available), the date it was published (if available), and in many cases you have the publisher listed as the article title ( |title= is meant to hold the article title) so just replace |title= in this case with |publisher= and you'll be all set! In the end, the goal is for all 7 of your references to look the way your first one currently does (if you look at the reference section of Spaw Sunday now you can see the difference.


 * One more thing, when you post on a talk page, end your post with " ~ " (without the quotes) to add your signature to your post.


 * I hope that all is clear. Let me know if you have any other questions about anything or if I've completely misunderstood your question here. I hope you decide to stick around Wikipedia; we could really use all the extra hands we can get! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter
Hello ,


 * Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action. If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
 * Second set of eyes

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation. Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
 * Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

New Page Review - newsletter #2
Hello ,


 * Please help reduce the New Page backlog 

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.


 * Getting the tools we need

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
 * Improve the tools: Vote here.
 * Reduce your review load: Vote here

P. coggeshalli for deletion
Hi, I noticed you tagged Plasmodium coggeshalli for proposed deletion (I wholeheartedly concur). I couldn't find any existing AfD, however, and I moved the contents of the article to Plasmodium lophurae, the proper taxonomic classification, so I'm going to start the AfD on the coggeshalli article. Icebob99 (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! This is going straight to the top of my resume! Ajpolino (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Thank you! (Just Gerda is fine.) Your award baby reminded me of my article baby ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)