User talk:Ajpolino/Archives/2017

Laziness
Did you look at the GEOnames database to search for Altamirano, before tagging PROD? as the instructions tell you to do? or were you vandalizing the WP? Check [] and search Mexico for Altamirano; lo and behold you find it, right where it says in the article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello ! Thanks for responding. As I had mentioned at your talk page, I can find no mention of Altamirano, Guanajuato in any book or website (besides mirrors of WP; also keep in mind I don't speak Spanish so I could be missing some easy sources). It is in GEOnames as a "populated place", but if you click on the link given and look at the map it appears to be a few blocks of Manuel Doblado. Is it a neighborhood or a subdivision of some kind? Where did you find the information that it was a village? Unless there are more sources to be found (very possible) I don't think an article of more than a sentence could be written on the topic. If it is not a legally-recognized entity (and again, it very well may be), it may not be notable (per WP:GEOLAND). If it is a neighborhood of Manuel Doblado, perhaps the current article could be merged there? Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned genes
Hey, thanks for dropping in to help with those! It doesn't matter to me if you strike them or remove, whichever is easier for you. Thanks! :D &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Able to help with Randal J. Kirk?
Hi there, Ajpolino. Hope you're well. Last week you mentioned that you could take a look at my edit request for Randal J. Kirk. Do you still have time to take a peek at this? Thanks in advance and let me know if you have any feedback or questions. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 20:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello ! Sorry for being incredibly slow about this. I'll start looking through the proposed changes this evening. Might take a little while to get through it all. Thanks for being so patient! Ajpolino (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Ireland assessments
Please don't use the old redirect template WP Ireland for WikiProject Ireland assessments but the current WikiProject Ireland instead. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , Sorry about that! Didn't realize that would be an issue. I'll use the correct one in the future. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Bio Farma
I have fixed Bio Farma page, I hope that can be accepted now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckfasdf (talk • contribs) 04:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , hello! Those two references do make the page much better! I've left a few links on your talk page which you may find useful as you improve Bio Farma and other articles. Happy editing! (Also, please sign your posts by typing ~ which will automatically be turned into your signature and time stamp. Thanks!). Ajpolino (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing !
Thanks for noticing my new article creation of Terrorist Recognition Handbook !

What do you think of the article? Sagecandor (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * , hello! Actually this is well outside my area of familiarity (I stumbled upon the page while patrolling new pages with [User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult|keywords related to medicine]]; another humorous display of the shortcomings of keyword searches). The page looks good to me. It has several references, and I'm assuming the book reviews allow it to pass the threshold of WP:NBOOKS (and WP:GNG). I was surprised that there was so much info on the author, especially since he is covered in a separate article. Perhaps a few details (like the spy museum bit) could be scrapped from Terrorist Recognition Handbook, and the section would read a bit smoother. That said, it looks like you're far more familiar with book articles than I am, so you'd know best. Let me know if there's any way I can help. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Extrachromosomal Circular DNA
On 08:51, 9 June 2017‎ I created my first new page Extrachromosomal Circular DNA on the English Wikipedia (English is not my mother language). On 20:24, 10 June 2017‎ you placed on Talk:Extrachromosomal Circular DNA: "... This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale." If I then look for an explanation: "Low — Obscure subjects that are important to researchers in the specific field".

That is really amazing: I cited publications in Nature, so the Nature journal is considered obscure; or publishes obscure subjects. The subject is causes of cancer, barely an obscure subject or unimportant for the general public.

Furthermore, if you want people to participate in the WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology, do you really think it is encouraging to rank their contribution (with a standard template) as 'Low-importance' and 'obscure'? It boils down to a punishment, and discouragement; killing any motivation to improve my contribution. Is this really necessary? Are there no friendly methods to stimulate people to participate?

I contribute also to another non-commercial platform with voluntary contributors and moderation, and they have refined the art of giving positive feedback to the highest level with a sophisticated and semi-automated system of rewards for even the smallest contributions. Nothing like 'your contribution is unimportant', just every bit of (correct) contribution is rewarded proportional to the contribution. Biontologist (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * , Hello! I'm sorry to hear that you feel that way.


 * In general, we rank the importance of topics based on how central we feel the topic is to the whole field of Molecular and Cell Biology. A rough guide is here. Basically, things that are ranked as "top" importance are those that are focused heavily on in introductory science classes or in the popular press (e.g. Cell, Gene). Things ranked as "high" importance are examined heavily in early university biology classes (e.g. Allele, Antigen). "Mid" importance is for things examined in later university courses (e.g. Allosteric regulation, Alpha helix). "Low" importance is for everything else, generally things that would be of interest to specialist fields within "Molecular and Cell Biology" but would be of little importance to those in other specialist fields. The overwhelming majority of molecular and cell biology articles fall into this category (about 23,000 out of 27,000. Although ~ 2,500 have not been sorted). If you look at Nature's table of contents for this week, you will see that Nature does indeed publish important papers on a number of obscure subjects (i.e. subjects that would not be common at the undergraduate biology level). To use your example, Cancer is rated "Top" importance. Meanwhile Oncogene is "High" importance (although it's "Mid" importance to WikiProject Medicine), p53 is "Mid" importance, and RET proto-oncogene is "Low" importance. This does not in any way rank the importance of your contribution. It is certainly important to fill in gaps in the encyclopedia by creating pages for topics that are not yet covered.


 * All that said, we all want people to feel welcome to contribute to Wikipedia and to feel fulfilled when they add information. I hadn't considered how adding the importance on the ranking template might make someone feel that way, so I appreciate you bringing that up here. I hope you'll continue to find contributing to Wikipedia to be rewarding, and will stick around to help improve the coverage of biology here. If you have any questions about editing or about Wikipedia in general, feel free to ask me here, or to ask any questions at WP:TEAHOUSE. Also, you may be interested in reaching out to WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology or WikiProject Genetics if those are the areas you're interested in (though certainly you don't need to join a project to edit!). Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

De-orphaning genes

 * Oh you, that's too much for my already-oversized ego to handle. I'm just pulling the easy ones off the list and leaving you all with the hard ones. Happy to help! Ajpolino (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahaha, easy for you but I have a social sciences degree, I don't have a clue about any of that stuff lol &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Sanitation!
Thanks for adding your name to the WikiProject Sanitation member list! Do you have any particular aspects that you'd like to contribute to or discussions you'd like to take part in? The more the merrier! EMsmile (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello! I'm mostly interested in sanitation as it pertains to microbiology/infectious diseases. Basically if it lives in poop, I'm interested. I've been here a few thousand edits now, but am still (slowly) learning the ropes. Happy to help out wherever I can! Ajpolino (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Super! Then perhaps you're interested in helminthiasis and neglected tropical diseases? Close connections there between diseases and lack of sanitation... So much work still to be done (as you know). EMsmile (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup! If there's anything in particular you need an extra set of hands for let me know. Thanks for stopping by. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yea, perhaps this is also of interest to you: I came across an interesting publication today about diseases spread from open defecation. I added it quickly to the articles on open defecation and sanitation but much more could be done, clarifying the connections of lack of sanitation and diseases as well as malnutrition. See here. Happy editing to you, too! EMsmile (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The Doe Run Company
Hello! Thank you for offering to take a look at the The Doe Run Company article. I look forward to your review of my edit request, as soon as you have a moment to do so. I can respond to any questions or concerns on the article's talk page, or on my user talk page. Thanks again! TS at Doe Run (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks for the reminder! It had slipped my mind. I'll get on that ASAP. Ajpolino (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I see you got started on this. Let me know if you have any questions. TS at Doe Run (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note! I'll be off the site for most of this week, but I'll be able to make more progress on the article next weekend. Thanks for your patience! Ajpolino (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, just making sure you spotted my question and reply to your updates on the article's talk page. Let me know if you had any questions, thanks! TS at Doe Run (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, just checking one last time about the final changes to the article and closing out the edit request. Thanks for all your editing! TS at Doe Run (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Laostatbureaulogo.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Laostatbureaulogo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think! If you could take a look to verify, I'd be much obliged. Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Abha Saxena
Thank you for reviewing the Abha Saxena page. The article's information comes largely from publicly available info on AIIMS and WHO websites, but also from other public sites related to Dr. Saxena's professional work. Some of that information was confirmed by information on publicly-available pages relating to her husband, Shekhar Saxena, who is also quite notable. I have heard at least five recent topical professional lectures by Abha Saxena and one lecture by Shekhar Saxena. MaynardClark (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!!!
That was phenomenal, thank you for the help! If there's ever anything I can do for you please let me know :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ryan Chetiyawardana
Thank you for taking the time to review that page. I'm snowed under with work at the moment, but just wanted to duck back in and confirm that I will be expanding when I'm a bit less busy. AdventurousMe (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Suga (rapper), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

PRehse (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello! What was your concern with the article that led you to unreview it? Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wanted more consideration given to the recent AfD.PRehse (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahhh totally missed that. My bad. I'll take a closer look at the sources this evening and either revert to redirect or seek a more-informed opinion from someone else. Good catch. I'll be more careful about that in the future. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not bad I just thought it was worth a second look. I am considering a bold revert.PRehse (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Best I can tell, that appears reasonable. I don't see anything new since the AfD (still just the one mixtape and membership in the band). I can take a closer look later today if you'd like another opinion. Otherwise feel free to go ahead as you see fit. Cheers! Ajpolino (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)