Talk:Molecular tools for gene study

Copyedit

This thread was originally interleaved with #Proposed merge with Nucleic acid methods. In extracting this thread I changed order and indentation to match the page history, and I split some comments in two, duplicating the signatures accordingly. I beleive these changes more clearly reflect the discussion(s) as they took place across the two threads. Sincere apologies if I have misrepresented anyone. The talk page as it stood prior to this cleanup is here. If there is any need to discuss these changes I suggest you start a new thread with title #TuxLibNit's rethreading rather than pollute this thread. Talk page guidelines are here if you need to refer to them for any reason. TuxLibNit (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward to cleaning this mess up tomorrow: major rewrite. Also, doesn't this need sections on: Restriction enzymes and ligation enzymes? This isn't my field: general science and grammar. CtrlAltDel 23:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

CtrlAltDel I think you are in the wrong place, Because I can't figure out any meaningful points from your statements above. Wikicology (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rewrite the text to fix the grammar and sentence structure. That's what I meant by my earlier post. CtrlAltDel 22:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC) User:Jeffreydavidspeck

CtrlAltDel, has it not occured to you that you are not appending your signature appropiately? I regretted that you had not corrected it after several signatures. Kindly effects the correction through your preference.

And as for this article what you can do is WP:COPYEDIT. Am glad to inform you that Blanking the page as you had proposed here in your initial comment will constitutes WP: Vandalism and you may be block from editing after several warning. However i demand the immediate withdrawal of your initial statement that you will Clean the Mess Up. It is not a mess but a Wikipedia article.

Wikicology (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking forward to <cleaning this mess up tomorrow>(replace with:)<improving this Wikipedia article's grammar and encyclopediatric style>: major rewrite. Also, doesn't this need sections on: Restriction enzymes and ligation enzymes? This isn't my field: general science and grammar. User:Jeffreydavidspeck AKA CtrlAltDel 23:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wikicology, for your help. I'm kinda inexperienced with talk pages and signatures and all, but I'm learning slowly. I'd never corrupt nor blank any Wikipedia page, in fact I linked this page with Genetics anticipating its ultimate polish. I'll finish proofing and polishing the rest of the article tomorrow. Jeffreydavidspeck CtrlAltDel 20:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you are welcome, Jeffreydavidspeck. Go to your preference., Under signature, then unmark Treat the above as wiki markupWikicology (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I know I've been a bad boy using the merge section; I'll learn.) I think all grammar errors are fixed now. Still needs a few sentences modified for increased clarity and explanation. I'll do this Saturday and Sunday. I think somebody should remove the tag which specifies the need for grammar/spelling correction. User:Jeffreydavidspeck CtrlAltDel 23:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "copy edit Grammar Spelling" tag. I'll restructure a few sentences under "Hybridization" and "PCR" tomorrow; then I'm done. I'll let somebody else add sections on restriction enzymes and ligation enzymes since I'm cutting outta here! User:Jeffreydavidspeck CtrlAltDel 19:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Nucleic acid methods

At one point the thread #Copyedit was interleaved with this one. See the comment like this one at the start of #Copyedit for full details TuxLibNit (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genes are composed of nucleic acids. Thus, the scope of the two articles is identical. There are a plethora of biology articles/stubs and consolidation keeps content focused and comprehensive. Prose that explains the techniques (as in Molecular tools for gene study is better than a skeletal list (Nucleic acid methods) that requires previous knowledge of the methods. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Animalparty I don't object the marging. This article Molecular tools for gene study is very much better than the skeletal list Nucleic acid methods. Since the scope is similar, then Nucleic acid methods could be marge with it. Wikicology (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the merging should be under Molecular tools for gene study title. Sinces its more sensible that its counter-part.Wikicology (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of a merging. CtrlAltDel 22:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC) User:Jeffreydavidspeck

I've removed the merge tag from Nucleic acid methods. The original proposal has been overtaken by events because this article has been deleted as a WP:COPYVIO. If anyone wants to reinstate it I suggest they first look at Molecular_biology#Techniques_of_molecular_biology and have a fresh think about how Molecular biology, Nucleic acid methods, Protein methods and a reinstated Molecular tools for gene study would form a coherent whole. My suggestion is that this article is currently unnecessary because any fresh content would fit better as an expansion of other existing articles.TuxLibNit (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original article was copyvio

Each main section in the original article as created by Wikicology was copied and pasted with minimal changes. The radioactive tracers section comes from this text, starting from p.90 and the Hybridization section comes from this text starting from p.62. The article text has been modified significantly from its original state so I don't think it's still a copyvio. However, the references originally added may or may not have been related to the text and should be double-checked. --Ca2james (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ca2james thank you for checking through. I want to let you know that no editor is allowed to publish original research. We often get information from different sources and integrate it. We cannot develop our own claim. In science, information about a particular subjects are always the same. For example, a certain book may refered to a cell as the unit of life, another book may have the same defination. If I get the info. from one of those sources having confirm the defination as correct, you don't expect me to define it as the unit of living. If I define it according to one of those book, is that a copyvo? Ofcourse no. However not everything you see are copyvio. Am glad you never refered to this as copyvio.Wikicology (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While we're not allowed to write original research, we're also not allowed to copy sentences word-for-word from another source, which is what you did in creating this and other articles. This original article was definitely a WP:COPYVIO. --Ca2james (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology, what you wrote was a copyvio, please don't try to wiggle your way out of it. Slightly changing the text by introducing some typo's doesn't change this fact. This has nothing to do with definitions, you copied examples as well.

Your text:

"Radioactive tracers are very sensitive and can detect a very small quantity of a substance.[4][5]. It is of great importance in Molecular biology and Genetics. It can be used to measure the appearance of an RNA product in a transcription reaction[6]. It may be used to detect RNA quantities of less than a picogram. Direct measurements of duch tiny quantities by ultraviolet light (UV) absorption or by stainning with dyes is not possible because of the limited sensitivity of these methods[7]. On the other hand, if the RNA is radioactive it can measure small amount of it easily because of the sensitivity of the equipment."

Source (as given above):

"Radioactive tracers allow vanishingly small quantities of substances to be detected. This is important in molecular biology because the substances we are trying to detect in a typical experiment are present in very tiny amounts. Let us assume, for example, that we are attempting to measure the appearance of an RNA product in a transcription reaction. We may have to detect RNA quantities of less than a picogram (pg; only one trillionth of a gram, or 10�12 g). Direct measurement of such tiny quantities by UV light absorption or by staining with dyes is not possible because of the limited sensitivities of these methods. On the other hand, if the RNA is radioactive we can measure small amounts of it easily because of the great sensitivity of the equipment used to detect radioactivity"

You have already been given a copyvio warning by another admin, and I can only agree with that. Any further violations will lead to a block. Fram (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]