Ajpolino

Thanks much, I'll wear it proudly. Also thanks for your efforts keeping the machine running at FAC and for taking a look over the article. Ajpolino (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you able to comment on this nomination(?); there's no obligation. Thanks, Sandbh (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

First off, congrats on the FA for prostate cancer I see above - that's quite an accomplishment! I really appreciated your taking the time to help review Maria Trubnikova for FA earlier this year. I nominated Nadezhda Stasova, an article about another member of the Russian feminist "triumvirate", for FAC review a month ago and it's been going through the process. However, it's only attracted 2 full reviewers and an image review so far, and though all 3 editors supported, I'm worried it'll get archived soon without another reviewer taking a look and helping develop a broader consensus. Do you have any time to comment on the article soon? If not, no worries of course, but if you do, thank you! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Of course, it would be my pleasure. Ping me again if you haven't heard from me by the end of the weekend. Ajpolino (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I know I've now passed my own deadline. Hoping to get to this tonight. Ajpolino (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hope you're doing well! This is a bit of a throwback, but wondering if you could take a peek and make sure I was right to redirect Small nucleolar rna, c/d box 48 to Small nucleolar RNA SNORD48. They seem to be the same thing, but I'm never 100% sure, and you know this stuff better than I do. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pardon the slightly slow reply, you were right (per norm), they're the same thing. Good find! Ajpolino (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, and of course no worries :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to bug you again, could you look at Wilms tumor-4? It seems like it was created as a gene article, but isn't one? It's not clear to me that it should have its own article, if it's not a gene. Is there a redirect target, or should it be deleted, or left alone? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hmm this is some genetics unfinished business – some geneticists found a family stricken with an unusual cancer, found a chunk of genome associated with that cancer, but never narrowed it down to a gene (and clearly didn't think through the Wikipedia implications of giving their favorite chunk of genome a name). Give me a week to find a moment to look into Wills' tumor genetics to see if there's a reasonable redirect target for this. Poke me if I haven't resolved this by then. Ajpolino (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

If only people would think of the Wikipedians when naming things, smh. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've got an updated list at User:WhatamIdoing/WPMED invitations. In the past, I've sent personalized messages. This is partly because you want to look at their contribs and see whether this is likely to be interesting and productive, so I thought: Why not say "Thanks for your work on Article" while you're there? Please skip anyone who feels like a poor match for WPMED's group, or whose name you remember seeing at WPMED in the past. Blank names from the list after you've contacted them.

As for what to say, I've had a lot of positive responses, but what I want ("read and participate in the discussions at WT:MED for the next decade or two") seems a little nebulous for a lot of less experienced editors. Cookbook-style directions seem to be wanted. That's why I thought that the referencing drive would be a good opportunity. If we can give them a list of things to do – click here to sign up, follow the step-by-step directions on that page – I think that would be well received.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply