→Commen: Rep. |
→City of Salford: new section |
||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
== One more thing! == |
== One more thing! == |
||
I didn't want you to miss [[User:Derek.cashman/Awards and recognition| this]]. Enjoy! <span style="font: small-caps 15px times;">'''[[User:KC Panchal|<font color="#800080">—Ketan</font><font color="#000000">Panchal</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:KC Panchal|<font color="#2F4F4F">''<small>t</small>aL<big>K</big>''</font>]]'''</sup></span> 10:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
I didn't want you to miss [[User:Derek.cashman/Awards and recognition| this]]. Enjoy! <span style="font: small-caps 15px times;">'''[[User:KC Panchal|<font color="#800080">—Ketan</font><font color="#000000">Panchal</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:KC Panchal|<font color="#2F4F4F">''<small>t</small>aL<big>K</big>''</font>]]'''</sup></span> 10:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
==[[City of Salford]]== |
|||
Hi thanks for your comments, although sadly not the delisting. I've replied [[Talk:City of Salford#GA delisted|here]] and would appreciate any further comments you have, it's been mostly me working on this article and it's sometimes hard to know how much is too much or too little in terms of detail. Thanks again. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 19:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:36, 18 June 2008
This is my user talk page. Please add any messages for me here.
Hi, I have re-nominated the article for GAN. You reviewed it a few weeks ago and I would appreciate it if you could take a second look at the article to review it again. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- The article has had significant improvements since it was last nominated. If you have time, please take a look at it. Gary King (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProjects to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Polyclonal response again!
Hi!
Several changes have been made to the polyclonal response article. Do you mind giving it a look, and making further suggestions for its betterment? In particular, I have shifted the "{{details}}" templates to the top of the respective sections after I received the same suggestion from another user.
Regards.
—KetanPanchaltaLK 17:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I read your comment regarding the primary and secondary structure of the proteins in your edit summary. Do you feel it'd be alright to make a note out of the deleted text? This I'm asking as I don't think the liked article (protein structure) really explains the concept well in the given context. —KetanPanchaltaLK 17:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Implemented your suggestions
"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."
- I'd thought it made the understanding of subtle difference between a clone not getting sensitized v/s just one naive cell not getting sensitized clearer. But, on your recommendation (may be because it's too informal)
"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."
- Done on all counts.
- Regards.
- —KetanPanchaltaLK 17:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I have renominated the Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis article, which has somewhat improved from the previously reviewed version. If you have sufficient time, I would like your assessment. The previous disagreements eventually required a mediation to resolve. Any questions, please let me know. - RoyBoy 23:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Polyclonal thanks!
Well, that's supposed to mean thanks for many reasons:
- That you promoted the article
- That you yourself made the (numerous) small contributions
- That you took your job so seriously, making sure that the article actually reaches a certain quality before being promoted
- That you awarded me a barnstar, and for other compliments
- And very important, being such a nice and important Wikipedian.
Early on, I was a bit irritated as to why an article in which already so much of hard work had been put was not being promoted. But, I realized with all the suggestions and changes that you'd made that that was my mistake—putting in too much hard work. My mistake was in trying to make it, in your words, "a stand-alone" article. That was partly because the I somehow didn't find the other articles satisfactory enough (I did try to modify some of them—B cell, memory B cell, clone, linear epitope, etc), but adding the concepts related to primary and secondary structure that I wanted in the polyclonal response article might have proved irrelevant there.
But, in the course of evolution of this article I realized that you were doing a terrific job, putting in a lot of effort (and that I better listen to you ;) as you were much more experienced than me).
You might have required to struggle so much with me because of my inexperience. This was the first article with which I was so intimately associated. My only criterion for making an article "good" was that the reader should understand it, and had totally overlooked the fact that equally important, it requires to merge together with the entire encyclopedia.
This was a very instructive experience. I hope, I'll have to struggle a bit less the next time around.
By the way, if this does not sound overambitious, what major changes would be required to make it reach featured article quality?
Also, now I'm felling that the article more aptly should be titled as Polyclonal B cell response; not that there are many other types of polyclonal responses in the body, but this sounds more appropriate.
Regards.
And yes one more thing, I was very impressed with the rate at which you were making edits the day before. And thanks for those edits.
—KetanPanchaltaLK 06:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Commen
Threats such as "I will revert you in 24 hours if you do not respond" (paraphrased) ([1]) are wholly unconstructive and totally against the spirit of Wikipedia. Please could you be more careful about your wordings in the future. What if the user had had a sudden spate of ill health? Not exactly fair to give an ultimatum. Additionally, we don't use ultimatums on Wikipedia. We don't rush things. We use discussion and WP:AGF to achieve progress. You did not WP:AGF with Enigmaman. You could have politely inquired why he had made the changes, waited until he had given his response before jumping to conclusions. Sorry for the long rant but that sort of behaviour is totally unacceptable on Wikipedia. ScarianCall me Pat! 09:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- My problem wasn't with your questioning, buddy. You made an ultimatum. Ultimatum's are really unproductive on Wikipedia. So please don't issue anymore. Cheers, mate. ScarianCall me Pat! 15:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to try and get me desysopped. I am open to WP:RECALL and I openly welcome you to try and have the tools removed. By the way, referring to you as "buddy" or "mate" is a colloquial term of endearment, I don't really understand how you can take offense to it. Perplexing! But, anyway, sure, try and have me desysopped. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
One more thing!
I didn't want you to miss this. Enjoy! —KetanPanchaltaLK 10:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi thanks for your comments, although sadly not the delisting. I've replied here and would appreciate any further comments you have, it's been mostly me working on this article and it's sometimes hard to know how much is too much or too little in terms of detail. Thanks again. Nev1 (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)