User talk:Tegiap

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi,

You seem to know a lot about the theory of cognitive developement, specifically, post-formal stages and their abstractions. Your contributions to the article have been really interesting....

Could you suggest any reading on this? I am unaffiliated with a university, so obtaining a research journal might be hard. I am extremely interested in the more abstract theory of cognitive stages and want to learn more.... --Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Your recent edit to knowledge I think this material is valuable, but the style is a commentary on the article, not a part of the article. I also think its too long and should not be the first item. I think it would be a lot better if you edited it hence my comment here, rather than going directly to the page. --Snowded (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for making the chances. I have moved the addition to the end (but made it clear that the article is about philosophy in the main). --Snowded (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] non-coding RNA additions

Hi,

Thanks for your input into non-coding RNA. I have a few comments on the sections you have included, I hope you can have a look at incorporating these comments:

  • Title for section is very long and not very much in the wikipedia style.
  • I disagree with the following sentence:

Brannan et al. (1990) first raised the possibility that (in one case) ncRNA was not necessarily "junk".

This is not the case. It has been known since at least the 1950s that non-coding RNAs have important functional roles in the cell and are not junk. tRNA and rRNA are the most obvious cases.

  • The section for roles as regulators does not really convey much in the way of content. Perhaps we need a new section on functional roles of non-coding RNAs. CUrrently the table seems to fulfill this role.
  • The final section on the possible role of RNA as an encoding for memory seems quite speculative. The evidence is not very strong for this. Therefore it doesn't seem like it should be so prominent in the article.

Anyway don't mean to be negative. Thanks for the contribution.

Alexbateman (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)