User talk:Saunc2011
 | This article was intensively edited as a Fall 2008 / Spring 2009 educational assignment: WikiProject AP Biology 2008. We invite you to join us to make further improvements and changes. We are not claiming any sort of ownership. This is a project in collaboration. |
- Let me be the first to welcome you and commend you on your enthusiasm and ability to follow instructions. The Wikipedia mantra is BE BOLD. For me at least, just making an account took a great deal of courage. The next logical step in your Wikipedia indoctrination is to energize your home page. It will serve as an excellent place to learn some of the basic wiki-codes without dorking up an article. Editing skills will require some experimentation and self teaching. The easiest way to start is to visit others and “steal” some ideas. By that - I mean click the edit tab and see their html codes which you can copy and paste into yours. CAREFUL --- don’t edit their page…. COPY not cut!!!!! You can then adjust it to reflect your own personal style. Feel free to be creative. Try to provide some insight into who you are while still maintaining your Anonymity. Personally I like the community’s use of user boxes to provide some insight into your way of thinking. --JimmyButler (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
BIO This user's favourite subject is Biology.
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Welcome to Wikipedia. You will find a surprising amount of support for your class project. Don't worry too much about the details of Wikipedia...just add good reliable content...which is far harder to do than endless formatting! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
User Page
[edit]User Page looks fine. You are off to a good start. --JimmyButler (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Saunc2011
[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| Hi Saunc2011, I'm Prom3th3an and I am a experienced editor and helper of wikipedia. I have recently discovered your class's wikiproject and would like to thankyou for taking the time to contribute to Wikipedia with (what I can tell) upmost enthusiasm. Your effort is greatly appreciated. I look forward to seeing the end result of your article mid next year and most likly drop in and offer advice to you along the way as I am freely available to answer any quires you may have. A final word of advice would be WP:BEBOLD. All the Best «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC) |
No, Thankyou
[edit]Hi Saunc2011
No need to thank me, you the ones deserving of a standing ovation ;). If you ever need help im usually on wikipedia day and night. Good luck with your article, Im about to spam everyones page with a few tips ;)Cheers «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
A tips from User:Prom3th3an
[edit] | Tip: If your making lots of small changes to a page, rather then clicking "Save page" for every change to see how it looks, Use "Show preview" between changes. When you have done editing a page for the time being, then you click "Save page". The reason for this is so you don’t make a save for every little thing you change, thus creating more revisions than necessary. For more information, ask your teacher or contact me on my talk page . |
| Tip: When you make a change to an article page, its good practice to fill out the Edit summary field. The edit summary field is a small text box above the Save Page button where you can briefly describe the changes you have made. The reason this is good practice is it tells other users what you changed without them having to view the revision. It also makes it easy to find a particuler edit in the page history should you wish to UNDO an edit or see the date of a change. |
Willy wonka
[edit]Oompa-Loompa dippy-de do --- I've got another riddle for you?--JimmyButler (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: PR
[edit]OK. Essentially, all you need to have to link is the article name. Then you add two square brackets to either side of it: and . So say you wanted to link to the page on tennis, you would have [[tennis]], which would give you an output of tennis. Then you have 'piped links', which link elsewhere to what the blue link says, so (sticking to tennis for some reason), you could have Roger Federer, using the system above, or you type [[Roger Federer|Federer]] (the '|' symbol is called 'pipe', and is found on the same key as '\', but is activated with 'shift') which gives you an output of Federer, which links to the Roger Federer page. A more detailed tutorial can be found at Help:Link. The most important you need is the article name to link to, and you can get that by finding other links or finding the page in the search bar.
P.S., I moved your message on my talk page down to the bottom, which is where new discussions are started.
Good luck, I'm still open for more questions. Apterygial 04:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Beyond searching for it in the search bar? I sometimes go to other pages to find links. For example, you could go to the page on the Brain, and try to find links to pages in there which could go in the article that you are working on. The search bar is usually fine; there's so many pages on Wikipedia almost anything you search for is in there. Apterygial 00:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:OVERLINK gives you the best answer to that question. It is a bone of some contention on Wikipedia, and the current policy is designed to remove the possibility of a sea of blue links. Oxygen may be good to link there, as you are referring to it in a more complicated sense. It really is a subjective system where decisions have to be made based on each situation, but really, as the policy says, "Only make links that are relevant to the context". Apterygial 04:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with answering questions. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, and believe me small problems are much easier to fix when you get them early. It looks like people are already starting to wish each other Merry Christmas around here, so a Merry Christmas to you! Apterygial 01:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas from Promethean
[edit]
Saunc2011,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
All the Best. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk)
Re:Peer Review for Brain Ischemia
[edit]Don't title the lead. As the article now stands the table of contents is at the top of page, but it should always be under some opening text. You also want to avoid giving separate headings to elements which are not strictly speaking the subject of the article. Ideally, if those pages don't have their own articles (they don't, but hypoperfusion redirects to ischemia) you want to be able to give as concise a definition as you can. I would have thought the definition of arterial obstruction would be self-evident; hypoperfusion simply appears to be a reduction in blood flow. So remove the headings and see if you can integrate those short definitions into the lead. Cheers, Apterygial 00:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm just wondering, actually, if the first sentence shouldn't just be "Brain ischemia, also known as cerebral ischemia, is the reduction of blood flow to the brain." The rest of that sentence seems a little redundant: "parts of the brain" is covered by "the brain" and the last bit of the sentence essentially says "due to arterial obstruction or reduced blood flow", which, when read with the rest of the sentence, doesn't really make sense. By reducing the sentence you negate the need to explain those words. Apterygial 01:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article. So what you should aim to do is mention the most important stuff from the article, so a bit on the background (which is your opening), symptoms, effects, types, causes, etc. A good way to think of it is writing a "mini-article"; people should be able to read the lead and come away with a good idea of brain ischemia. So don't mention anything in the lead that you don't mention in the body (though the reverse can be true). Writing a lead is one of the great arts of writing not just for Wikipedia, but for real life. I write a lot of essays for Uni, and being able to concisely summarize what I write is certainly one of the hardest skills to learn. Apterygial 02:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
No need to source the lead if it's mentioned in the body. Apterygial 22:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
A small number of things:
- Did you want to change the first sentence to what I suggested? You wouldn't then need that definition of arterial obstruction which seems a little out of place there (it also raises the interesting question of why a surgeon would purposefully induce ischemia...). I think here you should find a place to link to ischemia (though not in either of the bold sections, find a spot for it in the next sentence), which would mean you wouldn't have to explain all that.
- I made a few changes. There is no need to say "will be explained below", there is a general expectation that you will. The last sentence: "Brain ischemia is a very dangerous condition that should be looked into further immediately" I removed because it violates Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. It is not your place as the informer to tell people what to think. I'm horrified about some of the changes to Formula One this year, but when I write articles about it I don't express that horror (I'd love to, trust me).
- Link a few things at the end of the section (stroke, cardiorespiratory arrest, and severe head injury).
Other than that, it looks pretty solid. BTW, this is the last time I help you if you don't stop apologising for asking. It doesn't take too much time out of my busy schedule... Apterygial 23:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- The Manual of Style (shortened to WP:MoS) isn't particularly clear on whether links should be repeated in the body if they are in the lead. I always do, that way the lead and the body can stand alone and still have the links. On the other question, the way the lead ends now is fine. Apterygial 00:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Brain ischemia
[edit]Hey Saun
Brain ischemia is a little complicated. Still working on figuring out the proper classification system. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroke#Classification Brain ischemia and ischemic stroke are the same thing as far as I can tell. If you want I can give you access to uptodate. It is not recommened that one use it as a source bit it gives a great overview to medicine. All I need is an email address.--Doc James (talk ·
Hello, Alright. Yeah I looked that up before and I was slightly confused because of the two different types of Brain ischemia. This may be a dumb question but what do you mean by uptodate? Is it like an overall website? My email address is Saunc2011@gmail.com. Anyway, thank you! --Saunc2011 (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
contribs · email) 00:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
/tb spam apology