User talk:IcyEd

Improving Immunology Articles[edit]

Hi IcyEd, I am simply an editor who thinks some of the immunology articles on Wikipedia are far from complete and the quality can be easily improved. I'd love to do it all by myself, but it'd be even better to do it in a team, to be more efficient as well as to get a wider viewpoints (from the medical, molecular and cellular viewpoints for example). If you are interested, please go to here and just start editing. The purpose of the page (it's a new page) is simply to get everyone together and collaborate, as to ensure there's editors for different topics. I look forward to working with you soon, any help would be greatly appreciated. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 00:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so after a few days, only three people replied, which is not the worst. So what we need to do now is to pick an article and improve on it. You can do it however you want, but I'd suggest reading review papers, making notes on them, and then incorporating the existing article into it. (at least that's how I will do it) Remember to cite your sources and make it clear and simple enough for people that are not experts, because I think some of the articles are too technical. Please put your name here, the response is not the best (haha!) but I'm sure if we get the ball rolling, people will start joining in. Cheers! Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 11:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kinkreet, thank you for your editing 'advice'. Might I supplement that with a call to read some actual papers as well as the review articles. A page in urgent need of attention is the Immunological synapse stub.--IcyEd (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to BrahMos. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DBig Xray 13:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DBigXray. I have reverted the two dead citation changes, which as you pointed out, should have been resourced. I was less inclined to fix them as the general standard of sources is quite week in the BraMos article; some of the information is speculative, such as from defence blogs / forums. I am not overly convinced that good citations are available as yet. However, it is appropriate for these to remain in place until more suitable citations are found. I have kept the removal of one which was unrelated to its statement and moved another to a more appropriate place. Given the above I do believe that the ‘citations needed’ tags are required. I hope this makes sense but if you have further concerns please don't hesitate to let me know. --IcyEd (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding, you are free to place ^{[citation needed]} tags if you have checked the available sources and you find that the claim is unsourced. You can also check WP:NOCITE to know more about the policy. regards--DBig Xray 14:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already replied above the {{Talkback}} arived too late --DBig Xray 14:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)[edit]

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.

Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!

If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you![edit]

enjoy Doudou Yang (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]