You seem to have correctly filled in all of the technical details (Chrom, position, geno1, ...) but not provided any publications. If you would just put in a publication, we have bots that will populate all of those other fields for you. without a publication we don't have much interest in SNPs, as there are literally 10s of millions, but no reason to care about them until there is some publication. your note about the 'frequently misread is potentially interesting enough, but can you provide any evidence to backup the claim? --- cariaso 14:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
And in case you haven't seen it, the criteria for adding SNPs is outlined here: http://snpedia.com/index.php/SNPedia:FAQ#Which_SNPs_are_selected_to_go_into_the_Wiki.3F_And_where_are_they_selected_from.3F Greg (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Please respond to the earlier question, since it applies to your recent additions as well ... we would really like to see the reason for adding these SNPs to SNPedia, preferably with a citation to a peer-reviewed publication or data source. Greg (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I came across a tool that locates rare SNPs (frequency < 1%) and I found a few SNPs where I or siblings were homozygous for the rare value (as well as a bunch where we are heterozygous). I put the homozygous rare SNPs in here intending to research them further since being homozygous for a rare value is often a health problem. I also hoped that bots or others could add info. One of those SNPs is disease-related, the others no information yet. They may be nothing. If it is considered wrong to enter "uninteresting" SNPs I will remove them. But I entered them because I was unsure if they had any significance.
Since then I have become interested in the SERPINA1 gene SNPs as I have a disease related to it (one of the rare SNPs). Many of the ones I added today have disease significance and I will add more information on them later.