Wikipedia:Editor review/KC Panchal

KC Panchal
I have been on Wikipedia for around a year and a half now. But, most of my edits have been in last few months, only. Thought, I should get a review of my edits, so that I'd know what someone with a very different editing-profile feels about my edits.  —Ketan Panchal t aL K   05:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

 Reviews 

I just wanted to drop a note that from conversing with KC Panchal on an issue we had working from diametrically opposed viewpoints, that he/she works quite collaboratively on issues and seems to hold a spirit for Wikipedia. Would consider nominating for Admin status. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

After looking over your contributions, it is apparent that while you have done nothing bad, your contributions have not made a significant difference. Most of your edits seem to be small and largely irrelevant tweaks or exclamations of internet memes. While this may be a good way for you to occupy your free time, of which you clearly have a great deal, it would be helpful if you were to take your contributions to another level.

The most beneficial way for you to do this would be to do some original research: I noticed you haven't done much by way of improving stubs and this is an area in which wikipedia could really use your help. Wikipedia doesn't need so many vandal hunters, bored teenagers with nothing helpful to contribute, or edit-count chasers. A number of your posts reflect that you are especially cogent and articulate, and as this is the case I hope that you will turn your energies towards helping to improve Wikipedia by improving existing articles, especially with respect to stubs.Notepad47 (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * NOTE: The above review was made by an attack troll, the exact same text has been copy/pasted across 3 different user's talk pages as well as 3 editor review requests... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

KC Panchal is an enthusiastic editor. Unfortunately, his efforts are not as effective as they could be thanks to his limited writing skills. He does not seem to comprehend the importance of using clear and simple sentences. His writing contains run-ons and jargon galore. I would encourage him to take a writing class, and when writing for Wiki, to focus on creating short, simple sentences that the average eighth- or tenth-grader could understand--both on article pages and on talk pages. Thank you for the opportunity to write this review. And thank you for your work at Wikipedia. Walking Softly (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * 2) Polyclonal B cell response that I'd started as a stub called polyclonal response, which now stands as a good article. It was me who'd single-handedly added all the matter to it (with some input from WhatamIdoing). I'd created four images for that article, too. The fact that it is a very complicated concept to explain, and yet from (limited) feedback I got on it, I'd been successful in that attempt makes me proud.
 * 3) I rescued Artificial sunlight from deletion by adding (sense and) info to the article, which I'm in a position to expand further, but lack of time is a constraint. I'm particularly proud of it, as it is not a field I'm familiar with at all, but could expand only because of my sound understanding of elementary physics, and also because to expand this article I'd to add a section on spectrum of light in Sunlight.
 * 4) Clone (cell biology), which I created. Am pleased with it for firstly recognizing that such an important concept wasn't discussed in Wikipedia at all. I would like to expand it further when I have time. I'd be in a position to improve it as now I know what is expected of good articles after experience with polyclonal B cell response.
 * 5) Lymphatic system, which was the previous Medical Collaboration of the Week. I've added a lot of info and new concepts to the article, and as a part of Wikifying, I'd to create and improve many other articles (lymph vessel, lymph capillary, lymphangion, lymph node, etc.). This was another instance where I'd worked almost singlehandedly (of course with help of Ziphon) to improve not just one article, but the entire organ-system.
 * 6) The template Lymphatic flow, which I've used in articles related to the lymphatic system.
 * 1) The template Lymphatic flow, which I've used in articles related to the lymphatic system.

As such, I've never been in conflict; it's against my nature, and it's against the nature of articles I edit (I've hardly had expertise, and hence, interest in articles that could be remotely controversial). But, there have been instances of somewhat sharp differences in opinion:
 * 1) Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * 1) Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * 1) regarding the usage of term inoculation in GA-review of polyclonal B cell response. The other person had been a bit sharp ("I don't see the the beauty of using a word in an unusual meaning") in discouraging the usage, I thought I maintained my calm, and cited its usage with examples.
 * 2) Regarding  moving the artificial sunlight article. This instance had particularly irritated me as the person proposing the move didn't really come out as having genuine interest in the welfare of the article (at least that's how I felt, in spite of knowing that's not how Wikipedia policies want me to think). I also felt it wasn't right to judge the importance of an article on the basis of how many results were returned searching for a term. And any way, 50 000+ was good enough. I'd felt like leaving the article, but am happy that I persevered as the person in question didn't even return to the thread or had made any edit to the main article.


 * In future, if I've to deal with conflicts, I'd be calmer, as with time that I've spent on Wikipedia, I've grown more detached, and realized that it will always remain in "phase of improvement", so there's no urgency or pressing need for articles to be in best quality then and there.