User talk:KC Panchal/Archives/2008/June

RE: Medicine and adminship
Sorry I don't quite understand what you're trying to put across! I'm not entirely sure how me being an admin would affect my career as a doctor, nor the other way round. There are several administrators on the En Wiki who are members of the medical profession. Would you like to clarify your point a little? Sorry! Regards, CycloneNimrod talk? contribs? 11:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah no problem, sorry I wasn't trying to imply you were taking a stab at me or anything I just didn't understand your point. My reasoning is that when/if I get into medical school the majority of my time will be spent learning and off Wikipedia anyway. As I hope to do a PBL course, I intend to do some (obviously not the majority) of my individual learning by contributing to Wikipedia. Hope this clarifies things for you. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk? contribs? 16:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I already signed your guestbook :) As for our course options, there are loads of varieties but they only really vary slightly. The main ones however are the MBBS and MBChB. PBL does indeed stand for problem-based learning, essentially small group studies and a few lectures and then you go off and review what you've learnt and do some more independent learning. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk? contribs? 17:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PBL is just a type of learning within a degree. So for example you can study a MBBS in the UK but depending on which university you go to, some will do more plenary-based courses whilst others will heavily rely upon you doing your own learning too. So you can be awarded any type of medical degree and still do PBL, it's just some do more than others. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk? contribs? 17:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to MCB
Hi there, welcome to the Wikiproject! If you have any questions or suggestions, please drop me a note on my talkpage. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Cut&paste moves
Hello KC Panchal, you recently copied the contents of Afferent lymphvessel and pasted it into Afferent lymph vessel. This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself, follow the instructions at Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. --Oxymoron83 22:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Medicine!
Welcome to WikiProject Medicine!

I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities:
 * Read our Manual of Style for medical articles
 * Join in editing our collaboration of the week (the current one is )
 * Discuss with other members in the doctor's mess
 * Have a look at some related WikiProjects
 * Have a look at the collaboration dashboard

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or feel free to ask me on.

Again, welcome! David Ruben Talk 13:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks! And thanks for signing! -- Shruti14 t c s 20:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)  -- Shruti14 t c s has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Replied.
Not as bad as not signing when you've commented on an autograph book, eh? ;) Could you please point out where I've forgotten to put note sections, please (I hate digging through my userspace...)? · AndonicO  Engage. 09:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Well, thanks for letting me know (next time, it'll be a real error, and I'll be quite glad indeed). :) · AndonicO  Engage. 10:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Guestbook
Electrical Vandilize Me 20:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For all your child birth articles...........................
One thing, however. I categorized McRoberts maneuver in Category:Childbirth before you added Category:Obstetrics. The former is a subcategory of the latter, so per WP:SUBCAT, shouldn't the article only contain the most specific category?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 07:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

re: polyclonal response
If you want to add a footnote, I suppose that might be fine for now; but the best solution would be a better utilization of the other wikipedia article. If you don't like how Protein structure is written, then be bold and change it. Footnotes are good for describing some intricacies and variabilities in definitions, but something that is such basic knowledge as protein structure is better done with a link to the other article. With regards to this article's GA nomination, the section in question should be written based on the topic of the subsection, and not start with a discussion on protein structure, which most people should be well aware of and if they're not, they can click on the hyperlink to the protein structure article. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at some of your other footnotes, some of those can probably go, too, in favor of simple hyperlinks to other wikipedia articles. The footnotes for "cell", "tissue", and, "organ", are just simple definitions, and should not be found in footnotes. It's much more effective to refer the reader to the wikipedia article (e.g. Cell (biology)). The most important thing to realize is that you should be writing an article that is part of the overall encyclopedia we're creating, not a stand-alone article that's going to be published in a magazine or something. So because it's part of the greater publication, then we need to utilize these other articles, and if they don't exist or aren't good, then change them. Though for the purposes of GA, the actual quality of linked articles is not considered -- we look at the quality of the article being nominated only. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're very right. I'd have personally never put such footnotes or explanations in the article, but the reviews I'd got early on had indicated that a "good" article should be understandable without resorting much to viewing other articles. And, so do you mean that for assessing an FA, the quality of links is also considered? If that's the case, it must be really challenging to create an FA.  —Ketan Panchal t aL K   17:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * When assessing GAs and FAs, reviewers assess the quality of the article itself, and not the quality of linked articles. If we assessed the quality of every linked article, no articles would be promoted,... ever. The process would simply take too long. The only time linked articles really come into play is if there are 'excessive red links' (non-existant articles); that could be a completion/broadness issue in that editors are simply cutting corners by saving entire topic categories for other articles rather than writing anything about them. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

GA
With regards to GA, I think the article itself is very close. I removed the extra footnotes for the very basic terms, like "cell" and "DNA", but left the footnotes that you made for the terms where you put it into context for the topic of the article itself (which is what footnotes are for). Terms like "cell" and "DNA", most students should learn in high school, or even middle school, biology, so a footnote defining them is unnecessary. But if a term is used a bit differently in the article than its traditional definition, that's what a footnote is for; otherwise, the article needs to be written as a part of the overall encyclopedia, not as a stand-alone article.

I am not understanding the way you've written this sentence: "So, when in the "history of a clone", naive cells encounter their specific antigen to give rise to the plasma cells (that neutralize the same antigen by binding it), and also leave a few memory cells, this is known as the primary immune response." I think it's the beginning that's a bit confusing.

Need a few citations in some unsourced sections: 'T helper cell stimulation', 'Clonality of B cells', 'Difficulty in producing monoclonal antibodies'. Also, is the indented item in 'Increased probability of recognizing any antigen' a quote? If so, it needs quotation marks and a citation.

Other than these issues, I think the article meets the criteria, and can be promoted. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

Cool! Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Childbirth
It is rather in the nature of Wikipedia to have extensive coverage of certain obscure topics while treatment of some common topics languishes. It doesn't surprise me anymore, although it's probably interesting to the sociologists who study online communities such as Wikipedia.

One option when we don't own textbooks or other resources (I don't have any books on childbirth, either) is to borrow them from the library. I recently did this for the history section of the condom article. It really improved the article and didn't cost me any money. But it was a lot of pressure to have to go through the entire book and add all the relevant text to the Wikipedia article before the book was due back at the library. I'll probably do that again sometime, but I need to recover for a few months, I think.

Childbirth is an area I'm interested in, though I don't have a lot of resources to draw on. A little bit of work on cervical dilation is probably the sum total of my contributions in that area to date. I'm not aware of others working in this area, although I will let you know if I come across anybody.

I'm a big fan of merging stubs into larger Start-sized articles. It allows readers to access all the information Wikipedia currently has to offer, without having to navigate through several stub pages. I'm currently involved in setting up a task force for reproductive medicine (proposal here). If you're interested in help creating redirects and merging, I'd be happy to do that within the next few weeks. In the short term, I'm not sure I can offer help other than that. LyrlTalk C 22:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations
Yes, they are certainly in order after your hard work on polyclonal B cell response. You've worked hard and, more importantly, not given up when things were difficult.

From your message on WT:MED I gather you are concerned about numerous other articles. I have stopped worrying - Wikipedia is a work in progress (and probably always will be) and one day we'll have excellent articles on every major topic. I totally agree with Lyrl above with regards to the "obscurity paradox": why have we got a GA article on SAH but a rubbishy mess on stroke. I too remain concerned that few of the major medical topics (such as myocardial infarction) are featured or GA (cancer and Alzheimer's disease being pleasant exceptions).

I suppose most improvement is wrought by small bands of editors, often with one or two in the lead, collaboratively editing an article intensively. I am still shocked at the rapid expansion of ascending cholangitis, but I suppose that having good sources is a great starting point. It might be possible to band together some effective editors into a "wrecking crew" who can be called in to brush up floundering articles. But similar attempts in the past have failed, and I am not fully convinved that the present drive for "task forces" won't go the same way. JFW | T@lk  08:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "They" referred back to the title of the thread: "congratulations".
 * I agree that the variable quality is one of Wikipedia's drawbacks. Hopefully it will be a thing of the past soon. The paradox on core topics is well summed up by Lyrl and should perhaps be mentioned on WP:RAUL (which is worth reading!) JFW | T@lk  15:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Creating geo lists
Hi I've made an intital suggestion at the GEOBOT talk page in that it would be an excellent idea to generate a full lists of places in a tabled list. Once this is accomplished we can work through what articles could be started in their own right if there is enough info avilabale. I see it as a solid comprehensive base to build geo content on if we have a full world list organized like this. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography/Bot. Please offer your thoughts thanks  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 14:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Just to make sure...
Haha, thank you :) Regards, CycloneNimrod talk? contribs? 12:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC
Hi, FAC is all about achieving consensus. There is no reason to be scared and I'm not very good at euphemisms. It is taken for granted that articles presented at FAC have many, good features, so most of the comments to come will be critical. If you get any opposition either act on it or argue your case, (as you did with infectious), many reviewers change their views during the FAC discussion. From my first reading of the (excellent) article, I think a few issues about grammar and WP:MoS might be raised. One last tip, there is no time limit on a FAC as long as issues are seen to be being addressed, so don't panic and make compromising edits. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm Talk 21:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sig
tags) are to be avoided, since they disrupt the way that surrounding text displays." Bebestbe (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your sig is very disruptive. Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Customizing your signature, "markup such as tags (which produce big text), or line breaks (

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

userbox relocation
Hi, just a heads-up that a userbox you have on your pages (interest in conspiracy theories) has changed location to User:Sappho%27d/Userboxes/Conspiracybutnoreptoids

Cheers. Drywontonmee (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

MCOTW
Your request has been honoured in record time. Thanks for your help with ascending cholangitis, which is awaiting the patient attentions of a GAC reviewer. Let's see how hard we can flog lymphatic system. JFW | T@lk  10:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Normally, articles accumulate votes slowly, and take a few weeks to become front runners for MCOTW. Yours shot to the top quite quickly, so we can get to work on the article now. I will have a look at the polyclonal B cell response article, but my immunology is really quite rusty and I can therefore only really comment on stylistic and formatting issues. JFW | T@lk  10:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made a cursory review of the polyclonal response article. There are several major issues that IMHO prevent it from becoming FA. But nothing that cannot be overcome. I would strongly recommend liaising with two editors mentioned in my review. They previously did a more than excellent job in bringing allergy to an acceptable standard. JFW | T@lk  12:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Graduation?
Hi, Ketan. I guess that you graduated from Maharashtra University medical school fairly recently? If so, congratulations. Your "Education" userbox section needs updating. It indicates that you are a medical student. ;-) Axl (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Polyclonal B cell response
I have some free time this afternoon, and I'd be happy to take a look at the article. I'll post my comments on the article's talk page. Cheers--DO11.10 (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)