Talk:Leukocytosis

message: How come White blood cell does not even point to this article? Whoever is maintaining this article should ensure that that one is linked to here.
--Jerome Potts (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  incomplete homework 

message: I've put up a link to the Dutch page in the sidebar for other langagues. 06/06/2011 21:41 GMT+1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.6.218 (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connected to Dutch page 

message: Greetings. After saving this comment, I'll have a go at making some contributions to this article. I arrived at this article by a circuitous means. I was researching on another matter (eosinophilia - which itself arose from my research on another matter), on which I found a Wikipedia article. However, the article was conceptually incomplete: it does not begin with a broad conceptual overview (e.g. eosinophilia is a form of leukocytosis etc, which typically arises under conditions x, y and so forth, and is typically not a pathology per se but an indicator of underlying pathologies etc) before launching into detail that assumes a conceptual knowledge. Indeed, at time of this comment, the article doesn't even mention leukocytosis - which it should, as it is a sub-category of that phenomenon. Any phenomenon that is a sub-category of another phenomenon or set of phenomena, should always say so in the general overview. Similarly, any phenomenon that has sub-categories, should always say so in its general overview. So: I looked at this article (because to improve the eosinophilia article one should start with the 'parent' article so that readers can follow a link to it and grasp the overall picture if they choose), which is an improvement on the eosinophilia article, but could still do with more development on the general conceptual overview.
This is where I may be able to contribute. I don't rely on Wikipedia for my knowledge. I do utilise it for clues here and there. But I was extremely adept at finding information long before Wikipedia existed, so it's just a sometimes handy extra. My way of contributing back to the world in return for the wealth of knowledge I've found, is to contribute to Wikipedia where I can - in this of course I'm not alone, else Wikipedia wouldn't exist. It's also a very handy way of studying or reviewing an issue. One of the best ways to understand anything is to try to write about it in a fashion that a non-expert can grasp, and that an expert can also utilise for a quick review. Probably no expert relies on Wikipedia - nor should they. A pathologist for example would be expected to know about classic works such as Carol Porth's Pathophysiology: Concepts of Altered States etc., and to know how to find information in various databases. 
Wikipedia will never replace these. But editors can capitalise on their existence, especially with the development of the internet. Some good sources are not available without subscription. But the wealth of information is now so great that for any given concept, if you hunt enough, you'll find key terms, and you will find material you can view online, and which you can utilise for Wikipedia articles. Sometimes it has to be circuitous. My own approach sometimes involves referring to books like Porth's and others, which I still have access to, then finding something online which gives the same information, and which I can cite. Of course I could just cite Porth (or who-ever else), but to me that defeats the ideal of Wikipedia, which is to provide information that others can find - hence my strategy. This brings me to this article. I'll do what I can, and I hope it suffices. Meantime my best advice is to always, under all circumstances, strive to grasp and present the broadest conceptual overview first. The detail naturally follows on from this. If you present just detail and no conceptual overview, you force many readers to look elsewhere and forget about bothering with Wikipedia. Regards Wotnow (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your improvements.  Did you notice that you say there are five types, but name six items in that list?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! Thanks for the pick-up. I was reading several sources, and trying to get to some other tasks, so I didn't notice my duplication as I worked through the list. I've corrected myself now. Regards Wotnow (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Development of article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Leukocytosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327020925/http://library.usmf.md/ebooks.php?key=b11 to http://library.usmf.md/ebooks.php?key=b11
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified