User talk:Alexbateman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Alexbateman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  TimVickers 17:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] RNA entries

Hi Alex,

Thank you for your kind note. I did have a question about some of the entries. For example Small nucleolar RNA SNORD70 begins "snoRNA HBII-234 belongs to the C/D family of..." is HBII-234 another name for SNORD70? There is a bit of a disconnect here, since the article's subject should be clearly identified in the first sentence. Should these entries be changed to read "snoRNA HBII-234 (SNORD70) belongs to...."? I could use some guidance here as don't really know anything about RNA families (I am an immunologist but I found many of the article to be quite interesting-but they really need to be wikilinked).

A couple of other suggestions I have for the project are: 1) an RNA WikiProject banner for the Talk page, and 2) perhaps a few navigational templates to better link the articles together. A person to contact about creating nav. templates is Arcadian, he is really good at making them. Cheers--DO11.10 16:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, SNORD70 is now the official Human Gene Nomenclature Committees name for the RNA. So actually I think that should be the main name. I've now changed that entry round and added a link to the non-coding RNA page. Also added links to relevant databases in the field: SnoRNABase and the HGNC database.
Thanks for the suggestions they are indeed good ones. I have added them to Wikipedia:Wikiproject RNA/proposals. We really appreciate your help with the WikiProject RNA! Alexbateman 11:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MicroRNA

Thanks for your kind words. Replacing the many links with one certainly makes sense - and if you look closely at the history it was in fact Willow who added the links, not I. I'll be watching your project with interest. Good luck. CheekyMonkey 13:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making a page for tmRNA

{{helpme}}

I would like to get started on a page for tmRNA. So far I have removed a redirect on the page TmRNA, but that capitalisation is incorrect. Whenever I try to edit a page called tmRNA I get forwarded to TmRNA. Any ideas? Thanks Alexbateman 13:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between the case of the first letter of a page name, to help with linking at the start of a sentence. By default, it guesses that a page should start with an uppercase letter. If the correct case of the first letter should be 'always lowercase', place {{lowercase}} at the top of the page, and the first character of the name will be made lowercase in the page's title and URL. --ais523 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zasha says...

Hi Alex, thanks for the note. Jeff Barrick mentioned the RNA project. I'm not sure I have that much time for it (my Wikipedia activity has dropped precipitously over the last year or so), but I'll help out here & there. I might finally get around to several edits on the riboswitch page, now that preQ1 is published, and someone conveniently deleted the T-box mention. Zashaw 22:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Academic MCB affiliates

Hi there, I wondered if you wanted your lab homepage to take the first slot in the "Affiliated academic groups" section on the new list of resources and projects at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Related projects and resources. I'm trying to improve the Wikiproject's prominence a little. All the best Tim Vickers 19:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pfam and UniProt

Hi Alex,

I think about a semi-atomatic creation of WP articles using Pfam and UniProt content. How do you think, would that be consistent with their copyright policies? If I understand correctly, this is O'K with Pfam, but UniProt non-derivs policy would require their explicit permission? I am not quite sure how to better approach this. Could you give a piece of advice, please? Thank you. Biophys (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi User:Biophys,

I'm not sure about Swiss-Prot but with Pfam it is possible. We are currently running a pilot project using Rfam. We have created 600 WP articles and are seeing how that goes. That has been a lot of work to get them into a suitable shape, so I'd be worried about dumping 10,000 new articles based on Pfam entries into WP currently. But its certainly something that we along with InterPro have thought about.

Cheers Alexbateman (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tegiap replies

Hi, & thanks for the comments. —— I have only just noticed their existence after having just done some extensive editing in a different direction (adding to refs). I'll now turn to your suggestions, but it might take a day or two for me to take adequate action. — (I do need some sleep!)

(1) Title too long etc. Yes I did have that feeling. It is also divided in what it is trying to say! I'll see what I can do, and that might entail an accompanying reorganization.

(2) Brannan...(1990) being first. (I think I got that from Mattick -- perhaps the Sci.Am. article).   It is partly an argument over definition. I would have thought that mRNA and tRNA were automatically excluded from being classed as ncRNA. That makes the claim more reasonable, tho it may still be wrong. -- In any case it is very peripheral to what I was trying to say, so it should not be too difficult to rephrase the wording here.

(3) The near-empty "regulators" subsection. True, but (i) I certainly didn't want to re-invent the wheel which follows later, (and in any case that is outside my field) -- yet meanwhile (ii) I did want to contrast the memory/action-use to it, so I needed some way to introduce it. This seemed a tolerable compromise, perhaps leaving scope for others to elaborate if they saw fit. --- OK. I'll have another look at it.

(4) memory-encoding "speculative"? That is actually a very large epistemological question!!! --- I would agree that it is still somewhat hypothetical (and perhaps some of the "regulation" roles are also), but that is a step or two up from being just "speculative". I'll look at it again, but this one might call for more dialogue if you feel it is a major issue.

Kind regards, Tegiap (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)