Talk:Nucleic acid
|
|
| Contents |
Protected
Hi guys. Want to talk about it? Preemptively, I will ask you to restrict your comments to the text of this article. -- Cyan 18:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I made my points in the summaries. Lir has not refuted them.168... 19:01, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I predict this page will now sit silent until the article is unprotected, at which point the reverting will recommence. At least it prevents a useless waste of server time. I'd like to see a graph of the fraction of Wiki pages that are protected versus time. I bet it's going up. 168... 00:42, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Are you willing to interact with Lir on this page? -- Cyan 02:16, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Good point. No.168... 03:02, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
That wasn't the answer I was hoping for. Will you reconsider, as a favor to me? -- Cyan 03:43, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Protected
Unfortunately, this article has become a gated community. Any edits a general contributor would like to make can be written here, and I will implement them. Lir, 168, continued reversion of this page will accomplish nothing.
As a point of logic, I will note, Lir, that your justification (nucleic acids are not studied in just biochemistry) is flawed, because, as 168 has pointed out, his preferred version does not state that nucleic acids are only studied in biochemistry. -- Cyan 05:41, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
By stating that they are "studied in biochemistry"; one begs the question, "Are nucleic acids studied anywhere else?". They are studied, generally, throughout biology; although, of course, their biochemical nature lends itself especially to biochemistry. There is no reason to state, "studied in biochemistry"; when we can just state "biochemical". Lirath Q. Pynnor
If one wished to be as specific as possible (someone once told me it was the best way to communicate), one would write, "are one of the basic classes of macromolecules studied in biochemistry, and in biology in general." I would like to point out that terseness (which is the general approach you seem to me to prefer) is almost the opposite of specificity, which usually requires a certain amount of redundancy. -- Cyan 06:25, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
One can be maximally specific and terse by stating, "biochemical"; it can then be understood that nucleic acids are studied in any and all fields which might happen to study biochemicals. Lirath Q. Pynnor
It might be understood; or it might not. You seem awfully sure that all members of our audience will make the correct inference when faced with terse information. Terseness is a good writing style for study notes, when information is already known and must simply be recalled. I feel it is a bad writing style for an encyclopedia, which must provide context for statements, and must give the reader as much help as possible to understand the concepts being conveyed. In short, it is a question of whether we provide correct information (albeit possibly redundant) in a readable form, or we provide "study note" type expositions, high in information content, but requiring contextual knowledge our readership may possibly lack. -- Cyan 19:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- First off, biochemical links to the article on biochemistry -- so if, hypothetically, the reader wonders what a "biochemical" might be; they can easily click on the word. Secondly, this is not the Simple English wiki; we should not give the reader as much help as possible, linking the word to the relevant article is plenty of help (especially since I think you'd agree that its fairly obvious that biochemicals are the biochemical focus of biochemistry).
- In short, this isn't even an issue of context -- its very clear that biochemicals are related to biochemistry. Lirath Q. Pynnor
This phycist has been known to study ribose sugars (p orbital influence on hydrogen bonding). From my point of view, both forms of the language have all the problems asserted by either party. Or, in other words, you are all wrong, in all the ways suggested, from this distance at any rate. In which case, the solution I would have chosen would have been the most understood wording - here, biochemistry.
It strikes me that Lir is trying to say that these are studied outside of 'biochemists'. Surely the best way to handle that is a sentance of two descibing who these others are, and why they are interested in nucleic acids? Rather than quibbling over the inferences of a semantic point, make both points bloody obvious. Syntax 04:37, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Im not trying to say that, Im trying to state that there is no need to say "studied in biochemistry". And, by the way, it wrongly implies that these are only relevant in biochemistry classes. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Punctuation
The very first sentence of the article, currently protected, is confusingly punctuated: "The nucleic acids, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA), are..." should be: "The nucleic acids -- deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA) -- are..."
Who knows how long this senseless dispute will drag on (C'mon, this article has only three puny paragraphs! Spend time enrich it instead...), so I'll leave a note here now, in case I shall never come upon this article again. --Menchi 05:41, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Once the page is unprotected, could the header for See also be moved to the correct level? (==) Thanks Dysprosia 06:09, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Reversion War
This is not good. Admins should not be conducting an edit war. Please settle this quickly and reasonably, because I don't want this to be the first occasion of someone getting de-sysoped.
I picked the following version simply by scanning the History page. I have not read the article.
- (cur) (last) . . 15:21, 6 Jan 2004 . . 137.131.72.61
If anyone has a proposed change to the article text, even something as simple as a "protection notice", and they've been involved in the edit war, I strongly suggest that you mention it here and let another admin make the change. This will give you a clean "track record", so that no one will have cause to complain about "abuse of sysop rights".
I think this is fair to all, and is best for the long-term interest of the Wikipedia. --Uncle Ed 14:25, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree that this is fair and I am very glad that finally someone else sees it that way too. You have protected the version that I have been protecting against Lir. Generally, admins have been reticent or unwilling to deal with Lir as he needs to be dealt with (to the extent we want to make a good encyclopedia and not just fight fires), which is why I am acting in this provocative way. 168...|...Talk 18:50, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally, results of my polling suggest there is far from any concensus among sysops and others against the kind of thing I've been doing here (reverting/protecting against a notoriously obstinate user).168...|...Talk 19:00, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Um, yeah. I assume Pakaran is a "notoriously obstinate user"? Because you have been reverting all of his edits, too... I suppose after this page is unprotected, you would revert me if I changed the wording? ugen64 04:19, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
I am notoriously obstinate as well. We should all be hard banned. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Lir, since you put back protection notice, does that mean you are requesting protection ? Anthère0
Of course. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- I suppose that goes in the direction of your request yesterday...Could you please indicate me the last stable version to your opinion ? (careful, this is a test :-)) Anthère0
The current version is what I want, but I think its fair to say that its only a matter of time until 168 reverts it. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- I did not say the version you want, but the last stable version, which is perhaps different ? Anthère0
I really don't know what "last stable version" means, I came to the article and did not feel what was written here was sufficiently "stable" -- I edited it, and 168 apparently strongly disagrees with my edit. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- So...I suggest protecting it again, the next time it is reverted again. It should be protected in the last state it was protected previously, minus the see also people seem to agree on. Anthère0
I wish people would stop unprotecting the pages, we need to resolve the debates before unprotecting them. I wish a policy would be made on this, of course, the more I suggest it the less likely it becomes. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- Agreed. Meanwhile, what about just letting the top of the article stands, and work on other parts of it Lir ? ant
Because Im tired of being told to "move on" from every article at which there is a dispute -- I want to resolve these disputes, not simply be bullied around by others. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- you did not read me well. I suggested going on the same article, but in other parts, not moving to another. This article still needs work.
It doesn't matter whether I go to different parts, or different articles -- the effect is the same. Why would I want to try to add anything else, knowing that it too can be deleted by 168 and nothing I can do will ever be able to reverse his decision that my edits are not good enough. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- Right now, it can't be deleted by 168, but only removed, Lir. I think you are being too pessimistic. This is a fact you both do not agree on some sentences, but I do not think that means you can't agree on *anything*. If you add a whole new paragraph to that article, I see not why it would be entirely removed on the reason it is not good enough. Unless it is complete crap (and I do not think you do this), even uncomplete, or slightly unaccurate, or slightly biaised, or poorly phrased information is *better* than no information at all. And I do not think 168 would just delete it. However, he might improve it by adding, rephrasing...So, why do not give it a try ? I think you are censoring yourself here :-) Anthère0
I think you are showing that you don't know what is going on. 168 has repeatedly advocated removing everything I add to the wikipedia. Its a matter of semantics that everything he "removes" isn't technically "deleted". Lirath Q. Pynnor
- I however do not remember reading you were banned Lir. Shall we continue off line this conversation ? :-) ant
I protected the page, because Lir asked me to. This is meant to prevent a new reversion war to erupt. Clearly a couple of issues should be solved before DNA and nucleic acid are unprotected. SweetLittleFluffyThing
Hydrophobic Interactions
Hydrophobic interaction of nucleic acids is poorly understood.
What is the basis for this claim? I have never heard that there is any particular mystery about nucleic acids and the hydrophobic effect. Josh Cherry 01:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)