Talk:Koolen–De Vries syndrome

OTRS

Manuelcorpas (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Hi, I am a developer of the DECIPHER Database[DECIPHER database], the address from which the content of this page is taken from.

We are exploring putting all our curated information into wikipedia as a way to engage the community and help us annotate and keep up to date with the information we intend to provide.

We have been inspired by a similar initiative by Rfam.

Manuelcorpas (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks a lot for pointing to notability, neutrality and conflict of interest. The data that we provide in our database is bona fide and intended for public use for the general public, MDs and researchers. I am about to include 6 scientific citations for this entry and all the information provided is there for the public to use. We have no COIs to my knowledge.

I suggest that you leave a message about this at WT:MED, if you haven't already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Manuel, I notice you have now provided evidence that the information is under a creative commons license, but there appears to be a major flaw with this which you can see here. The license of the text states that "You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work". Since this means allowing others to edit the information would be in violation of this license, there is still a clear copyright issue here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello GiftigerWunsch. Thanks for pointing this out, I can see your point.

I've just talked to the copyright expert here in my group and we are going to either change the copyright notice for all resources in the Sanger Institute or just [DECIPHER]. It will take us several days to work this out, not earlier than Monday. You will hear from me once a decision is made.

Meanwhile, as I have said, the idea is that people around the world should be able to edit this entry so the copyright needs to be sorted anyway. Cheers. Manuelcorpas (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me note that it is more than the NoDerivs part of the license which is a problem, it is also the NonCommercial aspect. There is a table listing which licenses are acceptable for easy reference at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Many thanks, I will pass on this information to Don Powell who is ultimately responsible for copyright issues at the Sanger Institute.Manuelcorpas (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Manuelcorpas is the copyright holder and so he can actually take this content and place it into Wikipedia. This information would then be under Wikipedia's licencing. What would be a problem would be if someone who was not the copyright holder tried to put the content into Wikipedia. So there would be no need to change the licensing of the Sanger Institute website. I have been working with Manuelcorpas to bring the article into line with Wikipedia's style and I think this and further articles will be an important contribution. Alexbateman (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that will work. In order for us to verify that he is the copyright holder though, he will need to send an email as outlined in Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, but that should take care of the copyright concerns. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org from my institutional address verifying that DECIPHER syndrome information is in the public domain and that we are happy to grant the information we post Wikipedia's licencing. I wrote this on June 4th and have received no answer yet. Has there any progress been made by any chance? Kind regards, Manuelcorpas (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be reviewed around the end of this week (there's a fairly constant backlog as far as copyright permissions go) and as soon as it is either the page will be cleared and the permission marked as valid or someone will be contacting you if there's still anything that needs to be worked out. Thanks for your patience. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge

I have merged the two versions of this article and their histories (the original one and the one improved in userspace while OTRS approval was pending). Rockpocket 09:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rockpocket! I noticed a redirection link at the top of the syndrome page (Redirected from 17q21.3 Recurrent Microdeletion Syndrome). If one gets to the page "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=17q21.3_Recurrent_Microdeletion_Syndrome&redirect=no" you have a redirection link to the actual site with low case "recurrent microdeletion syndrome". Is it possible to unite both pages so that regardless of whether it is written in capitals or not, users get to the same page? Many thanks! Manuelcorpas (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey. We are not permitted to have two copies of articles (mainly because they would differ as soon as someone edited one and not the other). The redirect function works in a way that for most searches you end up at the correct spelling without even being aware that you have been redirected. For example, type "17q21.3 Recurrent Microdeletion Syndrome" (with Caps) in the search box and you end up at the small caps article (with just a short note informing you that you were redirected). Notice that the link you provided: "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=17q21.3_Recurrent_Microdeletion_Syndrome&redirect=no" specifically stops the redirect ("&redirect=no"). Rockpocket 14:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Figure to describe inversion

It might help to have a figure showing the normal allele and the inversted one. The textual description is hard to understand. Alexbateman (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)