User talk:KC Panchal/Archives/2008/July
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ascending cholangitis
It has passed GA! Well done for all your work on this article. JFW | T@lk 21:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 27 | 30 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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) 04:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sourcing anything currently, I'm just cleaning up the language that's there. I'm very much not a medical expert, so I'm going to do my best to defer questions of content to those who have a better understanding of the system.
Wikilinking percolation to clarify might not be a bad idea if it's used. In general, though, I'd keep the lead as relatively plain language. The article lead should be an easy to read overview of the topic, with the details in the article below it. "Travels slowly and is filtered" isn't that much more than "percolates", and it's (in my opinion) much easier to read.
The discussion of lymph nodes and the lymph vessels should probably be two sentences at most, leaving the rest to their main articles. How they interact with the other parts of the lymphatic system is really what should be covered in the system article. SDY (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 28 | 7 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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) 09:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
... for the nice barnstar! JFW | T@lk 10:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
My userpage
My page used to be really, really ugly. For example, it looked like this for a good year and a half (not to mention six months after I became an admin it still looked like that). After changing it up, here, it still looked pretty nasty. I love the black/red combo (in fact, that's the color scheme I'm wearing right now), but it really didn't look good as a userpage. So I switched it to blue. It still isn't the best, but it's definitely better than it used to be. Useight (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello! You look like someone who might be interested in joining the India WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you help us :-)
|
Links for Wikipedians interested in India content | |
|
Register: Indian Wikipedians |
Network: Noticeboard | Discussionboard
Browse: India | Open tasks |
Deletions
| ||
RE: RfA question answers
Not bad answers but i'd still question the need for you to wield the mop! You concentrated a lot upon vandalism-related stuff but I see no contributions to WP:AIV? That is certainly something that the people over at WP:RfA will pick up on, so before you apply you'll need to get experience in reporting users there. I recommend you get an automated tool (WP:HUG is very good) to help you get used to reverting vandalism at speed (still carefully, though) and it'll also help you to report things to AIV.
Since the tools come as a package, most editors will want to see that you have experience of WP:AfD, WP:CSD and WP:RFPP. In addition, 100% edit summary is usually a good idea. I've noticed that this month you've kept it at 100%, which is good.
In short, i'd probably recommend another month or two just getting used to the aforementioned areas of Wikipedia, and keeping your edit summaries to 100% for both major and minor edits. If possible (I couldn't be bothered with my current RfA but look how it's going!) try and get someone to nominate you in a few months time since some people oppose self-noms (some more notably than others). Hope this helps! :) —CycloneNimrodTalk? 10:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I did download huggle, but that's not working on my PC. I have not been able to figure out the problem. Though, have been using MWT for a couple of days. My edit summaries have been 100% for about two months now. Even before that they were not 100%, but most of them were in the userspace. Thanks again for the guidance. How does one get someone to nominate oneself? Isn't that canvassing? —KetanPanchaltaLK 10:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm. I'm a little torn whether or not it is canvassing. There is no harm in asking someone if they would nominate you in my opinion, but I guess you're right it could be seen that way. That's part of the reason I didn't this time round. But from experience, nominated candidates seem to get further in most instances. —CycloneNimrodTalk? 10:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry, your nomination will clear the 50% mark. Does the userbox with tag "this user is not an administrator, but would like to be one some day" help in any way? —KetanPanchaltaLK 10:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, over 50% does not constitute consensus (unfortunately!). RfA is not a majority vote. Instead, the bureaucrat will have to analyse the results and make an appropriate decision. As for the userbox, I used to have it but decided to remove it. Someone might nominate you if they know you want to be an admin, though, I guess. —CycloneNimrodTalk? 11:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry, your nomination will clear the 50% mark. Does the userbox with tag "this user is not an administrator, but would like to be one some day" help in any way? —KetanPanchaltaLK 10:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm. I'm a little torn whether or not it is canvassing. There is no harm in asking someone if they would nominate you in my opinion, but I guess you're right it could be seen that way. That's part of the reason I didn't this time round. But from experience, nominated candidates seem to get further in most instances. —CycloneNimrodTalk? 10:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I noted your comment on Nimrod's RFA where you said you would remove any statement or fact or sentence from wikipedia which didn't have its own citation. If you start doing that, as opposed to researching stuff first, you'll cause havoc and get a lot of no votes if you go for admin status yourself. Nick mallory (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
RE: AGF Challenge 2 Exercise
Nice answers, didn't read through them that thoroughly my mind is on a blank at the moment. I'll read them properly when i'm back from holiday on the 3rd August. You may be ready to apply for adminship if you want by then but I most likely won't be able to support if you do it before! —CycloneNimrodTalk? 17:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Now tell the guy who's vandalising the page. You've got the wrong talk page. :) --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC) - That's ok. It's a mistake I've done myself. One of the reasons I don't like Huggle. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Evolution
Sorry about the brief block, a vandal / sockpuppet had twice made the same edit, and you evidently inadvertently undid my reversion of the vandalism bbefore being reverted as vandalism. Too much rush! All should be well now, dave souza, talk 21:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
unblock-auto|1=59.184.161.254|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "KC Panchal". The reason given for KC Panchal's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: evobiblesock".|3=Dave souza|4=993133
Am not sure if everything's well by now, though. Am still not able to edit! —KetanPanchaltaLK 21:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about this, the unblock is recorded but the autoblock may be causing a problem. Will try to get this sorted. . . dave souza, talk 21:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Found and removed one; try now? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's working. Well, I was really scared. Felt like I was behind the bars, even though the block was not in real life. ;-) Could you please explain me in brief what caused the problem? Incidentally, I just completed my three thousandth edit, and what a way to celebrate! —KetanPanchaltaLK 21:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Found and removed one; try now? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
|
The Services to Science Award | |
| Thanks for all the fish, KC Panchal, and for working to dispel the yapping terriers of ignorance. Very sorry about the glitch when you were helping to defend the evolution article, congratulations on all those edits! dave souza, talk 22:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC) |
- (ec with Barnstar! sort of thingy)When a named account is blocked, the underlying ip is also blocked to stop the blockee immediately creating a new account and continuing with whatever vandalism they had just been blocked for. This is done by a bot (automated process), which doesn't take into account that sysops sometimes get the wrong (good) guy and often can't tell the difference between a new account and the one just blocked. Someone then has to go into the autoblock files and manually lift the block, and even then sometimes it doesn't release - so we try again. And again. Seems that eventually somebody applied the right amount of persuasion as far as you are concerned
- Congrats on 3k edits - I hope the next 2k, 5k and so one are marked with a different type of recognition! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- That was helpful. Thanks. —KetanPanchaltaLK 22:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
editor review
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) 07:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- L-O-L —KetanPanchaltaLK 22:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- buddy if you're going to be rude about the criticism you asked for, don't ask for it. i didn't intend to coddle you- im sorry you seem to have expected that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notepad47 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- buddy, it's not really criticism if you copy/pasted the exact same thing to three different user's talk pages... If you are going to review a user, even as half-assed as this review is, the least you could do is give each of us a different review instead of just copy & pasting it like that... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Troll-a-LOL-a-troll-a-LOL!
- Troll-a-LOL-a-troll-a-LOL!!—KetanPanchaltaLK 21:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
your false accusations
what did i remove from nick coopers talk page? please show me the link to the history. i do not remember doing this and cannot find it in the page history. if i did this, i apologise. that said, please substantiate your accusation. Notepad47 (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- This was the blatant deletion of another user's edit you couldn't find, as well as this little gem of completely changing someone else's message on another talk page... between all your threats, accusations, incivility, disruptive edits, etc., if you keep this up, I don't see you lasting much longer around here... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thankfully, Adolphus79 has done that for me. But, I understand, you are so new to Wikipedia that you didn't realize while making all those edits that they were unethical, and illegitimate. But, I also understand that you're such a uninitiated, yet prodigious Wikipedian that you know all about editor review and edit wars and POVs, and also about "the link to the history", that every one can be proud of you. It's better to move along a more typical learning curve, rather than taking a perverse interest in the smooth ongoings of Wikipedia. Your apology if sincere requires to manifest through your constructive edits, and not arrogant replies on the talk pages. —KetanPanchaltaLK 17:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
LULZ of teh day...
I'll assume that this will get as good a giggle out of you, as it did me... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, it did. Thanks! Alas! No more excitement in my Wikilife :-( —KetanPanchaltaLK 20:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Pipelayer
Can I write articles on companies manufacturing Pipelayer's ? --202.125.143.76 (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you can prove notability and verifiability of those companies. Check out WP:COMPANY for more information, and to see if you think the qualify... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Transparency | ||
| WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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) 06:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)