Talk:Sir2

Untitled

There is a line that states that rDNA circles are the primary source of aging in budding yeast citing Ref. 10. While this was thought to be the case at that time (1999), it has since been shown not to be true. Please look for more updated references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.178.24 (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Hi, I just read your article Sir2, and almost all sentences were copied verbatim from the Scientific American article cited. Please don't do that. While personally I don't believe in "intellectual property rights", it is clear that copyright violations like this undermine the noble project that is Wikipedia. Thanks, AxelBoldt 03:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention by AxelBoldt that my original article submission was a violation of sorts of the Scientific American article. I'm disputing this, and would like to revert it. I did summarize the article, yes, but that's just research... scientific journals, especially FREE articles offered online, are a good source of information. It was also referenced... so what's the problem? I also do put every page I create on my WatchList, so no need to message me about it, since the talk page is a better medium. SciAm was also not my sole reference, I was originally made aware of the enzyme in a diet book I read, and supplemented that with information on it I'd gotten from other pages such as Calorie restriction... Tyciol 13:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Of the eight sentences in your article, four were verbatim cut-and-paste copies from the SciAm article [without labeling them as quotes], and two others were very slight modifications to adjust grammar. That is neither "summary" nor "research". In academia it's called plagiarism, and legally it's a copyright violation. That is the problem. AxelBoldt 14:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I basically cut out the jabber areas, which I indeed recognized as opinions. The others were just statements of the results though, you can't really say them any other way, and even if I did change them they'd be the same anyway. Facts are facts, after all. If I were to post what another reporter wrote about a president's speech 'so and so replied "..." after exiting' then I doubt it would be that bad. I could put quotes I guess. Thank you for expanding the article again, at least it's gained more recognition. How does one discern between SciAm and these other sources as proper? Tyciol 05:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Facts are facts and cannot be copyrighted, but the expression and presentation of facts is copyrighted. You need to organize and formulate the facts yourself; simply "cutting out jabber areas" from someone else's text is not sufficient.

SciAm is a proper source and I still have a SciAm article in the references. SciAm articles are written for general audiences, not for specialists like the other journal articles I listed. AxelBoldt 01:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This page is about Sir2, not sirtuins...

Most of this page is about sirtuins, and it's title is Sir2. Sir2 is the name for an enzyme found in yeast and fruitflies and such. Sirtuins is the name of a group of enzymes, regardless of its species. Or am I missing something? Just my thoughts. . . Rhetth 21:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of merging this article with the Sirtuin article, since a lot of the information can be classified under sirtuin information, such as its homolog's effects in mammals and such. Rhetth 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

taking out sentance...

I'm removing the part of the sentance "...; it is thus reasonable to conclude that Sir2 is responsible for producing the life-extending effects of calorie restriction" because this isn't really an encyclopedic bit of information, it is an analysis of an experiment, and since it's not cited as what some vetted expert has concluded, it isn't really a fact per se, so I removed it. Rhetth 19:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)