User talk:Sion55

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Uremia may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Uremia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Uremia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Immunity, Fatigue, Sterility and Anorexia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tubulopathy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gordon's syndrome. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vasculitis

I'm not sure if the table you added is based on the source or whether you have completely copied it. Consider copyright.

At any rate, have a look at what I've done with the citation. Books should ideally be referenced with a citation template. JFW | T@lk 20:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, make sure the use of capitals is in line with MOS:CAPS! JFW | T@lk 20:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HiJfd, I've just been copying tables out of a book. As far as I know, there is no way to paraphrase a table. Thanks for the citation info.Sion55 (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, there is a chance that you might run foul of copyright. By "paraphrasing" I mean changing the terminology, layout etc. JFW | T@lk 20:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe as long as you reproduce the results and don't actually photocopy them, your in the clear. All you need to do is reference them. Since its not possible to photocopy in wiki unless your posting a picture, your in the clear.Sion55 (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: RBC Morphology (April 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bradv was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:RBC Morphology and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bradv 00:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sion55, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Bradv 00:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: RBC Morphology (April 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ringbang was:

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Thanks so much for applying your expertise to Wikipedia!

I see that your previous submission was declined for being essay-like. Wikipedia:Writing better articles describes the structure and organisation of a Wikipedia article. It also gives hints for technical articles for a general audience.

In this article, two issues seem to me to be particularly conspicuous:

The first is that some of the material (including most of the "Limitations" section) is outside Wikipedia's purview. The remaining content is clearly written for a small, specific readership. Items 6–8 in "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal" explain the pertinent guidelines.

The second is that the scope of the article is not clear. Implicitly, the article is about human RBCs, but this is never stated (state the obvious!). The lead section (or lede) explains that the topic is "the size, shape, color, inclusions, and arrangement" of red blood cells. But then the rest of the lede is about laboratory procedure. There can be discussion of how blood cells are analysed, but that should probably come later in the article, and with more context and explanation in an encyclopedic tone.

The bulk of the article are the tables. At this point, the reader has to work hard to distinguish between normal morphologies and pathological ones. It would be much clearer if the article started with a title that's easier for a broad audience to understand. From there, you might briefly summarise what a blood cell is, what all blood cells have in common. Then move into any universal characteristics of non-pathological blood cells, and what makes a damaged cell pathological. By moving from the general to the specific, readers can form a mental model of these new concepts in which categories fit neatly and logically.

Some of the material might overlap with what's already in the Red blood cell article, or possibly another hematology article. It's okay for there to be some overlap, but ideally we want the comprehensive treatment to live in one place, and for other articles to summarise as needed and to refer to the comprehensive article. If you have any questions about where or how this article fits in the encyclopedia

While the Teahouse is good for general questions, discussion of medicine-related articles takes place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Thanks again for your contribution. I hope you decide to stay!

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:RBC Morphology and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ringbang (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:RBC Morphology

Hello, Sion55. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "RBC Morphology".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]