User talk:Ajpolino

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


GA review - need help moving image

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]

In appreciation

The Reviewers Award 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]

Beck–Fahrner syndrome

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]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

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]

RE: Prohibition of links in infoboxes

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]

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

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]

Your GA nomination of Dracunculiasis

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]

Your GA nomination of Prostate cancer

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]

Vandalism

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]