User talk:KC Panchal/Archive 1

Thermodynamic feasibility of converting creatine to phosphocreatine
I got this doubt reading the 25th edition Harper's Biochemistry (the latest is the 26th edition), which I couldn't get resolved even after searching on the internet including Wikipedia. There is a mitochondrial creatine kinase (miCK) present between the inner & outer mitochondrial membranes, which phosphorylates creatine to phosphocreatine at the cost of an ATP molecule (ATP-->ADP), which is exported out the mitochondrion through the pore protein 'P' (pages 147-148). What is the need for such an enzyme if any way cytosolic creatine kinase can carry out the same reaction? My guess, is that it must be faster to transport phosphocreatine out of the mitochondrion than ATP, but I do not know for sure (as such a thing is not WRITTEN in the text); then, once in the cytosol, the phosphocreatine must be getting converted back to creatine, phosphorylating ADP to ATP in the process. But, an even bigger doubt is how id the reaction creatine-->phosphocreatine (requiring 43.1 kJ/mol) thermodynamically feasible if ATP-->ADP releases only 30.5 kJ/mol (page 126; table 12-1)? Looking forward to replies--answers/guesses/just about anything. KC Panchal 10:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't have an answer for your question, but i'd like to direct you to the science reference desk and request that you ask the people there, they're more likely to have an answer than the people who stumble upon your talk page (like myself!). Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 22:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary
Thanks for leaving an edit summary with practically all your edits. However, there is not normally a need to put ~ in the edit summary, as the Wiki will remember that it was you who made the contribution anyway. Given your interest in medical matters, have you considered joining WP:MED, our medical contributors panel? JFW | T@lk  17:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind message. WPMED is open to any contributor regardless of qualifications (many members are medical students). Let me know if you need a hand at any time. JFW | T@lk  11:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Polyclonal response looks good. I'll review it properly when I have the time. To create a link to subsections, use the "#" (hash) symbol. To link to "See also" in polyclonal response type polyclonal response . You may want to pipe the link to avoid the hash displaying: see also . Cheers. JFW | T@lk  21:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My access to research papers is not great either - I have access to a couple of core journals. Generally, a general textbook is fine as a source. JFW | T@lk  21:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!
Just thought i'd offer you an additional welcome to Wikipedia and to the world of encyclopaedic medicine ;) Good luck and happy editing! Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 22:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Schematic diagram depicting polyclonal response by B lymphocytes.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Schematic diagram depicting polyclonal response by B lymphocytes.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Schematic diagram showing polyclonal response by B lymphocytes.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Schematic diagram showing polyclonal response by B lymphocytes.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Polyclonal response
You're very welcome! After reviewing your reply I see your point that there is a lack of information that could be placed in an infobox, so yes, withdraw that point! ;)

I see you added polyclonal response to the immunology list, thanks for that. I conducted a minor edit to fix a minor error.

As per Significance, include the uncited claims anyway but place a Citation Needed notice next to it by using the fact template. This can be replaced when sufficient evidence is found. Don't worry to much about being repetitive, others can fix that for you.

Happy editing! Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 15:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Clone
Before you create an article, it's better if you hit the search button. I redirected it to a better one. Dekisugi (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do click Clone (cell biology) and review the redir now. Dekisugi (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi back,
Just had a quick look at your reply...sounds good.

I will look at the article again ASAP - should be within 24 hours.

Chzz (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: have just pasted further comments

Chzz (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

GA review
Just a quick note: Yes, you can nominate "your own" articles for GA status. However, I wouldn't do that just yet with Polyclonal response. We're making good progress with including information that's intelligible to non-scientists, and we need to continue that effort. It would also be worth reviewing the Good article criteria in advance. Once you've dealt with the specific issues on the talk page, you can use the criteria as a sort of checklist. For example, compliance with six named sections of the Manual of Style is required, and we can take them in turn: Is the introduction compliant? Does the layout follow the usual system? (etc.). Once everyone agrees that we're in good shape (and fixes whatever needs fixing), then one of us should nominate it for GA.

Based on my recent experience, the GA reviewers should be assumed to know absolutely nothing about the general field, much less the specific topic, and to apply rather more stringent requirements than the criteria actually state. Consequently, I think we want the article to be in very good order before nominating it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance
I don't mind trying making the article worthy of being understood by those with no prior understanding of the topic. What other specific deficiencies do you see apart from the fact that the article does not have six named sections? Ok. Well, I have already nominated the article. Do you suggest taking the nomination back? On the latest front, am uploading another image for linear epitopes.

Please do make frequent "rounds" of this article. You have been quite supportive. Thanks again.

How many reviewers can be expected to give their vote? Are they voluntary users or somehow nominated users? In what kind of time frame is the decision reached?

Regards.

Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I haven't been quite clear: There are nineteen sections of requirements in the Manual of Style.  A Good Article only has to comply with the rules in six of them (plus anything that could be called "spelling and grammar").  A Featured Article must comply with all 19 sections.
 * As for what to do: Good Article Nominations can be put on hold, if you want, but it often takes a week or more for them to bubble up to the top, so there's probably plenty of time to think about it.  And if they turn us down -- well, we fix the identified problems and nominate it again.
 * I'm going to be off-wiki for most of the next ~18 hours, but your talk page and the article are on my watchlist, so I'll be back! Thanks for all of your intensive work.  (I love the new "tumbled about" version of the epitopes.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear WhatamIdoing,


 * Thanks for your attention to the article, and also the indication that I shouldn't be very optimistic about its "graduation" to a good article.


 * But, are the criteria and standards required for a 'good article' the same as a featured article? I don't believe it would be easy for a topic technically so complex to be of much interest to the common person.


 * Apparently, the greatest hurdle seems to be the jargon (or parlance) being employed. I don't mind at all trying to explain every term in the article, but that would make it very long. Can I attempt that?"


 * Most importantly, thanks for giving your time in spite of such a busy schedule that you have.


 * Regards.


 * Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. polyclonal response
...particularly in regard to jargon words. The target audience has to include the 'man on the street' (like myself),as well as experts in the field. I firmly believe that ANY subject, no matter how complex, CAN be made both interesting, accurate and clear.
 * The image is now much clearer, well done
 * I'm choosing to remain anonymous
 * Re. GA - I suspect the comments by WhatamIdoing above are quite apposite. I thought it would be difficult for such a technical article to get a GA. Difficult, certainly not impossible, and the very best of luck to you with it!
 * Re. GA procedure, study [WP:RGA], specifically "there are no committees, no requirements (beyond a username) to be a reviewer, and no requirements for multiple votes or consensus"
 * I do think that quite a bit of a rewrite would be required, the specific problem area being this part of [WP:WIAGA];
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

Thoughts?

Chzz (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to "third" look by Chzz
Hello!

Thanks for your comment on the image. I almost redid it, and somehow took much longer than I'd thought. I'm sorry I asked you something personal. Or course, you have all the liberty to stay anonymous. Hope the question didn't offend you. I didn't get you--does the article comply or not comply with the above areas (lead, layout, 'words to avoid' and jargon) according to you?

I'm including here a pertinent part of my reply to whatamIdoing:


 * "But, are the criteria and standards required for a 'good article' the same as a featured article? I don't believe it would be easy for a topic technically so complex to be of much interest to the common person.


 * Apparently, the greatest hurdle seems to be the jargon (or parlance) being employed. I don't mind at all trying to explain every term in the article, but that would make it very long. Can I attempt that?"

So, I pose the same doubt before you--do I try to explain all the terms in the article, which no doubt, will greatly expand the article, making it very lengthy.

I have another request, do you mind going through another article that I started--clone (cell biology). But, I can assure you right at the outset that you're going to "hate" the picture used!

Thanks for all the support.

Ketan Panchal, MBBS (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for lack of time to look at your other article, or contribute much to this one; however, I see the progress you are making on it, and I applaud that. If I can be of further use later down the line, please do leave a message on my userpage. You're doing great work making this more readable.

Your science ref desk question
Our docs are very busy and hard to come by. I've had pretty much the same experience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine  may give you a bit more success, but by and large your best bet is look up someone that specializes in that area here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Participants    and leave your question on their talk page. I didn't want to put that on the ref desk to keep every yo-yo in creation from bothering people. Your question seemed legit. Good luck. :-) Disclaimer: This is not medical advice ;-) 71.236.23.111 (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi, I see your article is going well, and I have a small favour to ask in return. I have just rewritten an article, and I would very much appreciate it if you had the time to have a look at it. Nothing to do with your field at all...but sometimes that's a good thing! It's about a small town in England.

The article is Eastwood, Nottinghamshire

The peer review is Peer review/Eastwood, Nottinghamshire/archive1

If you have the time for a quick look, I'd appreciate it.

Regards,

--  Chzz  ►  06:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your comments and suggestions, all duly noted, and - along with comments from a couple of others - I am working to improve things. --  Chzz  ►  10:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please Note: I have moved your comments about Eastwood from the talk page to Peer review/Eastwood, Nottinghamshire/archive1. Please check there, as I will post inline replies. Thanks! --  Chzz  ►  07:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar!
Also, i'm not sure if you're aware, but there is a Medical Collaboration of the Week which I think you would find interesting! This week is Long-term effects of alcohol. Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 14:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the barnstar.Ketan C. Panchal, MBBSUser_talk:KC Panchal 21:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Citations
Yes, this is a common problem. It can be solved by giving your reference a name. For example, i'll use a commonly used eMedicine citation:

 

To use the same citation again simply use:  

Hope this helps. Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 15:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to link you to a help page too. Here it is: Citing sources - How to cite sources

Unavailable!
I'll be out of town and not accessing the net, so unfortunately will be unavailable to reply to any comments for a week. I know I have made some sweeping, unconventional changes like including a glossary in the article polyclonal response. There will be a few repetitions in the body of the article and the Section titled "Explanation of terms and concepts", so any one interested is requested to rectify the same. Bye for now. Happy editing.

Regards.

 Ketan Panchal talk-TO-me>>> 14:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Polyclonal response
I quick failed Polyclonal response because of the copyedit tag. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe I shouldn't have. I didn't take into consideration that the article had already been copy edited and the tag waas left on by mistake. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A clarification
"Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Etiquette of Indian dining has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 10:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)"

Thanks for the welcome. But, am not very new to Wikipedia. As the case is, I have indeed provided an edit summary: "→Right hand: added the "" template and a hidden comment". You can verify this at.

Moreover, in the hidden comment I have provided the complete reasoning for my action that is adding the hidden comment. Regarding the fact template it is pretty evident (at least, so do I feel) that such a statement requires to be backed by a reference. Being an Indian I've never really heard of such an explanation. It's not just the food, but even in many other aspects like social ceremonies, the right hand is considered the "auspicious" hand.

Likewise, I have also discussed some issues in the talk page of the article.

So, I'd be glad if I'd be told more precisely how my actions have been deemed "unconstructive".

Thanks for being watchful even of a relatively neglected article.

Regards.

 —Ketan Panchal  t aL K   11:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, this is exactly the reason why i decided to stop patrolling for vandalism for the moment. I began to notice that my current state of tiredness is affecting the quality of the patrol i am currently doing. Apart from being just in time to correct myself 3 times in 10 minutes (Which is bad enough!) i also reverted two edits which were ok. Just like the above editor this has been a case of bad judgement; In her case i missed the fact that the article in itsself was about a fairly questionable activity, which means that information added would also qualify as being rather weird.


 * In your case, i completely missed the HTML comment tags which prevent the text from appearing in the article. Due to missing them, my assumption was that a user was adding a personal comment in the article, which is of course not exactly constructive. Of course, my apologies for the extra work caused :) Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 11:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's alright. As I mentioned in my previous reply, also good to know that a relatively obscure article, too was getting attention from some one. I was going to suggest that may be you should go slow on your patrolling as I'd seen a few more complaints on your talk page. But, refrained thinking that should not be seen as something hostile. So, what do you suggest, that you "unrevert" or that I revert your revert?


 * Regards, again. By the way, I had once been complimented by one of the administrators for "leaving edit summaries on virtually all pages" ;)


 *  —Ketan Panchal  t aL K   11:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you get my compliments for that to. There are SO many people forgetting to add edit summaries that it can get annoying to find out what they actually changed and why they did that. Apart from that, don't worry about my mistake ratio; I have been told to take it slow before due to the high amount of mistakes that were on my talk page.


 * However, this is simply a matter of the Law of large numbers. If i have a mistake ratio of 1% (or 1 in 100) and everyone comments on it, it means that if i make 100 reverts 1 person will complain. However, if i make 1000 reverts, i will have 10 complainers, which will seem like a lot. With 4 complainers at my page as of current, and 2300 reverts this month, i don't think it is that bad :). But in this case i had 5 errors within 100 reverts, which is, in all ways, way to much. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 12:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Polyclonal
Hi KC,

Just wanted to let you know that I'm mostly back -- real life promises to calm down RSN (real soon now) and am s-l-o-w-l-y catching up with what I missed during the last ten days. I made a few minor changes at Polyclonal response today and will look at it again in another day or two. I missed lots of work there, so there's much review to be done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you shoot yourself in the head twice?
Why are you throwing WP:Point around in regard to this Reference Desk question? No one is being disruptive, with the possible exception of user:Bastard Soap and the only person who replied to his silly question was YOU.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  22:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Polyclonal response
Hi,

A personal matter has come up, and I won't be able to invest much time into Wikipedia over the next 2-3 weeks. That means that I won't be able to offer a detailed review of the Polyclonal response article. So, I want to offer to you the comments that I've drafted so far.

Aside from the suggestions I've posted at Talk:Polyclonal response/GA2, I would like to suggest three other changes:
 * 1) Various sections of the article need referencing (for example, "Proliferation and differentiation of B cell", "Clonality of B cells"). If you've retrieved the information from the sources that are already cited, then you could still add in-text citations to clarify this.
 * 2) While shortened footnotes are not required per se, they could help to make the "Notes" section more readable. See Citing sources for more details.
 * 3) I've had some difficulty making up my mind on the issue of the "Explanation of difficult terms and concepts" section, but ultimately I would suggest removing the section and instead making more use of in-text wikilinks.

Best of luck, –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Page move
I moved to, in case you were looking for it. There's no "Editing User:" namespace, so I'm assuming you wanted this in your own user space. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Artificial sunlight
Hi, I was asked on IRC by User:Sunderland06 to review the article... I left my comments here. Feel free to discuss them with me if you need to here, there, or on my talk. Best regards, umrguy  42  21:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Heh thanks about the userpage, its just copied of someone else's. :p Sunderland06  (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: My navbox
Hi there, I can seem to make it smaller but I can't figure out how to centered it when i've done that (tried using DIV's and centre tags) so if you could have a look at it (User:Cyclonenim/NavBox) and make changes that you seem suitable which still look neat and tidy (i.e. centered) then that'd be grand. I'll have another look at polyclonal response too. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk? contribs? 10:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this, i've made your changes. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk? contribs? 11:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Clonal expansion and monoclonal versus polyclonal proliferation1.PNG
A tag has been placed on Image:Clonal expansion and monoclonal versus polyclonal proliferation1.PNG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)