User talk:Mike Lin

Nice articles on junk DNA and shotgun sequencing! I link your stuff for my bio students all the time. Unrelated: are you the Mike Lin of Startup CPL, Rapid Backup and other high-quality freeware utilities? If so, are you still developing or accepting questions/suggestions on these programs?

Good edits on "junk DNA". I think the "it's a reservoir for future evolution" doesn't work based on modern evolutionary theory, but I think what you have added makes that whole section better than it was. Cheers m8! Evolver 23:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I really liked your recent edits to the Junk DNA article. I think it flows more Jessicanr (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)smoothly, and is clearer about what was the mistaken assumptions (much stuff people thought was junk has a clear function) and the fact that there's still good reason to believe that most of it is junk, or at least has a loose function. Kudos. Zashaw 06:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey Mike, I was reading the Human genome article (which is very nicely written) and ran across a sentence that I was hoping that you would elaborate on. "Thus follows the popular statement that "all humans are at least 99% genetically identical", although this would be somewhat qualified by most geneticists." As it is now, I have no idea what a geneticist might say about that number (too high or too low?). Are you referring to something technical (such as differences in sex chromosomes) or an active debate in the field? It's just one of those statements that begs for something to follow. --Plociam 19:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Human genome for a reply. --Mike Lin 16:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Have you seen?
"Parallel Patterns of Evolution in the Genomes and Transcriptomes of Humans and Chimpanzees" Published online in Science on 1 September 2005? I can send you a copy. --JWSchmidt 00:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Human genetics
I was watching an documentary on National Geographic that briefly mentioned that only 1.5% of human DNA makes us human (and that we share 98.5% of DNA with chimpanzees, 75% with dogs, 33% with daffodil flowers).

I find this very fascinating, and you appear to know a lot about this subject. Is there a table/reference source that you know of that would list many more flora/fauna and the percentage of DNA that humans share with them? Perhaps this is something that could be put on Wikipedia?

Science collaboration of the week
You voted for Human genome to be improved while it was listed on WP:IDRIVE. This article is now nominated on Science collaboration of the week. Please consider supporting it with your vote. --Fenice 13:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

SCOTW project: Human genome
Human genome is the current Science Collaboration of the Week. Since you voted for this article, I thought you might be interested in contributing to it. - Samsara contrib talk 03:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Junk DNA
I retracted my revert at this article. Taking a second look, I think for once we can assume readers are smart enough to sort such things out for themselves. Sorry to shake the box up and run. --DanielCD 02:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

SCOTW: Chronospecies finally makes it!
These are the comments on the nomination, which may be helpful in improving the article:
 * Lots of potential for this little article like examples, causes, and general elaboration. Neum 04:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A great fact to include would be the shortest time over which speciation of a sexual organism is known to have occurred. &mdash;James S. 21:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In other news:
 * SCOTW needs a new maintainer, and could to with a maintenance bot. If you know of anybody who may be interested in either task, please let them know!

User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Junk_DNA
I used your previosu actions as bassis for a vote ,please confirm. thank you. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 23:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mike. Please see Talk page discussions before making significant changes ,specifically erasing whole segments of the text, thank you.

Furthermore ,I've put the article for merger ,since I dont see any good reason for them both to be apart. considering term word "non coding" han't been proven ,the ambigous term "junk" seems more likely. Id'e appiciate you input. thanks ! :) -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 11:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Large Hadron Collider is Science Collaboration of the Week
User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Biopharmaceutical is the Science Collaboration of the Week
User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Which Mike are you?
Are you the Mike Lin wrote a couple of Windows utilities and once worked for IBM (That Mike also attended MIT)? If so, I tried to email a thank you to you and want to find a way to get it to you. If not, sorry for mussing up your talk page :o) badmonkey 05:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hydrogen is the science collaboration for August 2006
Okay guys, now let's make this an FA!

User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

SCOTM
NCurse work 06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the month
NCurse work 06:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the month
NCurse work 07:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the month
NCurs e work 17:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurs e work 09:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurs e work 17:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the month
NCurs e work 16:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 19:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the month
NCurse work 06:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 15:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 13:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

MIT Nobel Deserves Attentions
If you look at Harvard's wiki site, there are 75 Nobel count, but the official Nobel count by Harvard itself only includes 43 Nobel Laureates. If you look at Columbia's wiki site, there are 84 Nobel count, but the official Nobel count by Columbia only includes no more than 80 such Nobel winners. Same principles apply to Cambridge University, Oxford University, etc. MIT deserves the same attention as these other ones. If you think that we must follow the official Nobel numbers published on the site of each university, then please go to this list and correct ALL the universities there because I'm 100% sure that majority of these universities do not include visiting scholars/professors in their official Nobel count. By the way, I'm a student at MIT and I just went to the human resource and news office last week, informing this issue. It seems like MIT really does not care about visiting scholars/professors who won the prizes, even though those MIT news office people admitted that all the people I found were indeed related to MIT. You work in Broad Institute, so why not take a personal visit yourself to the MIT news office to confirm that everything I said is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MITBeaverRocks (talk • contribs) 15:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You can block me from editing MIT Nobel count, but the truth of MIT Nobel is there. If you do want to block me, please go to block all those who who did the same thing (like what I did for MIT) at the Harvard's wiki site, Columbia's wiki site, etc. So, I guess I will visit you in 32-G828 next week to clarify things up. Also, you just publish a paper in Nature recently (Nature 450:203-218); you do understand that scientists can cite not ONLY from one source, right? MIT's news cite can provide valid information, but not ALL the information. If you go to all the official Nobel Prize website, you can find that all I added are correct.

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I was wondering if you could explain further your revert for Human Genome. As it reads now, it makes it seem as tho there are 24 chromosomes, when there are really 46. There are, however, 23 chromosomal PAIRS. your explanation of "this is also misleading because the 20-25k genes and 3Gbp figures are only counting the haploid genome" makes no sense to me as i don't have a background in science. could you please explain this? thank you. Jessicanr (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 08:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Broad institute logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Broad institute logo.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Facts about Python
The {fact} tag someone placed on the Python article about Python's influence on OCaml's Whitespace library is not answered, I am afraid, by direct testimony of the library author (i.e. you). That would be a primary source or WP:OR rather than a secondary source as we may use here. However, I would imagine you must have published some description of your library when it was released, and a link to the project page or its documentation, would make an excellent explanatory footnote.

The {fact} tag serves a very different purpose than the {dubious} tag. The latter is for facts that editors think are genuinely unlikely to be true; the former is for ones that an editor feels need better citational support (but that probably can be supported). Obviously, it is a fine line and somewhat subjective to determine which facts are so completely uncontroversial as to need no specific citation. But since some editor (not me) felt that the influence of Python on OCaml/Whitespace needs further support, it is always better to err on the side of more explicit citation. LotLE × talk 20:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doh! I am suffering terrible foot-in-mouth today. I did not notice the link that is exactly what I requested at the end of the very same bullet point.  Never mind, I have restored your quite correct edit.  Sorry.  LotLE × talk  20:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Caml.128x58.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Caml.128x58.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)