User talk:User1311

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, User1311! Thank you for your contributions. I am Dr.pragmatist and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Dr.pragmatist (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your excellent work with articles pertaining to molecular biology. Awesome work, keep it up! --IShadowed 09:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mir-n microRNA precursor family[edit]

Regarding your recent spate of articles of the "Mir-n micronRNA precursor family" type (Mir-5 microRNA precursor family, [Mir-432 microRNA precursor family]], etc) contain little information other than

In molecular biology mir-n microRNA is a short RNA molecule. MicroRNAs function to regulate the expression levels of other genes by several mechanisms.

In other words, you are identifying the specific molecule as a member of a family, and then saying something about the family of molecules (which is redundant, since there is already an entire article on the topic), without giving any further information about the molecule itself.

Is this really useful? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WikiDan61's concerns. The list of references is tailored to each article, Wikipedia is not a collection of links -- each reference must support a point made in the article to describe this micronRNA precursor. If your intention is to expand each article to integrate the content of these references then the articles can continue to exist, but you should not be creating the articles faster than you can reasonably document them in prose format. Thank you. Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The intention is to expand out these articles based on the Additional references. I and others created about 40 of these stubs two years ago and these have been greatly expanded. An example of one of these is Mir-10_microRNA_precursor_family. Alexbateman (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for addressing our concerns, and for teaching me something about microRNA precursors in the process. Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned that each individual is not notable on its own, however. Perhaps consider initially compiling these as a list, and then spinning out articles one at a time? That would be a better approach than a large quantity of initially identical articles, I fear. I've proposed most of them for deletion for now, but if you remove the tag and expand the article I won't object. On the contray; molecular biology is fascinating, I'd love to learn more! Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was not a clever thing to do. It makes more net work for everybody--such creations are strongly discouraged. Myself, I think it very likely that each one of them will be considered to be notable, just as every protein and other gene product is, but it would have been fairly easy to add a sentence or two to each article at the time of making it. Zaldak decided to deal with them by listing them all for proposed deletion--I think that this really needs consensus on how to deal with them, so I have gone to the trouble of deprodding them to permit this .

Even if the decision were to do them as a list, we would still normally make redirects from each individual one, and the easiest way to do that is by editing the original articles, which preserves the work of having found the references--no matter how mechanically they had been found, it is still a start. What I might have done is first made the list you suggested, and then done the redirects. But now that they are made, they should be expanded. Alexbateman, are you willing to work on these? DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, I am happy to expand these in an attempt to build up a more unique and notable summary for each. User1311 (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, thanks for your comments. We've always intended to expand these, and have already started doing so. Sarahburge (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, User1311! Thank you for your contributions. I am Kfh123 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Kfh123 (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Hi User1311,

Thanks for all your hard work. I noticed that you are adding external links to Rfam and miRBase currently. These links are already available in the Infoboxes on these pages. Its not clear to me that this duplication of links is needed. It might be viewed by some as too self promoting. Alexbateman (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexbateman,

Many thanks for your input and for bringing the matter of link duplication to my attention. I have now ensured the removal of any deemed to be repeated and unnecessary. User1311 (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mir-### microRNA precursor families (CONSOLIDATED LIST of PROD articles)[edit]

The following articles have been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

These articles presently contain no notable information not already covered in MicroRNA. There is no need for each individual microRNA molecule to have its own article if it is not individually notable (WP:IINFO), something these articles presently do not show. I recommend instead creating a List of microRNA precursor families, and then spinning out individual articles one at a time. Zaldax (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid spamming your talk page, I have consolidated the article notices into this one notice; the articles in question are below:

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the respective article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zaldax (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT Oh my...there are so many more that I didn't notice.... Zaldax (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think that's all of them added now. Please consider making these into a list before expanding them one at a time! Zaldax (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zaldax, I appreciate your concerns and advice. However, the idea behind the creation of these stubs was to enable expansion of them as a joint effort with other Wikipedians, using the additional references provided. User:Alexbateman has outlined this above in response to the similar concerns of others. It would therefore be much appreciated if you could perhaps reconsider the PROD status you have added to these stubs. Many thanks. User1311 (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this too, but I think there's potential for these articles; however, for the time, being, I think it would be best for the subjects of these articles if they were at one large page, rather than individual pages, to facilitate navigation and improve accessibility. Redirect should be considered as should be links from other pages where appropriate. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with deleting these articles. The subject of the articles are certainly notable as the further reading sections show. I agree that the articles don't currently add much specific information per article. But that can be rectified in fairly short order, at least to give a sentence or two of specific content with a reference. Would that be sufficient in your opinions to remove the deletion proposals? Alexbateman (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the issues at hand here, I will be expanding the stubs in order to give each a more obvious and notable profile. User1311 (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, thanks folks. I apologize if I caused any alarm here; had I more knowledge of molecular biology I would have attempted to improve them myself, but I'm glad that you all jumped on solving this. Remember, in the future it might be best to create a list article of redlinks first, before creating them one at a time. They've all been de-prodded now. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concern here should be less about how much new information each article has right now, but more about how much immediate potential there is to add specific information on that particlular RNA to each article. It seems that each article has references with RNA-specific information, so they can be expanded. I think they are much more likely to be expanded as stubs than in a list, so in the interest of building the encyclopaedia I too would support not deleting them. Rockpocket 13:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at them, for most there is good specific information; for some there is not yet much if any—all the references being general. It would seem very likely that some of these will probe much more important than others. The simplest thing to go by now is the number of references. Some of them seem to have only one specific function, some of them are implicated in many pathways. We probably should make some sort of list or index page, and the question is whether to do it as a list, or as a navigation template. Personally, I hate navigation templates, which I consider primitive and obtrusive, DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Lsy-6 microRNA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bilateral

Mir-26 microRNA precursor family (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hypoxia

Mir-663 microRNA precursor family (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to AP-1

Mir-671 microRNA precursor family (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to CDR1

Mir-764 microRNA precursor family (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Calvaria

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Mir-601 microRNA precursor family (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fas

Mir-624 microRNA precursor family (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Quiescence

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]