User talk:Manudouz

Speedy deletion nomination of Pavilion of the portugal of expo '98
Hello Manudouz,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Pavilion of the portugal of expo '98 for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article,.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Nicky mathew (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography sections
Hi, re your edits at Lilioid monocot: it's perfectly ok to have items in a Bibliography section that are not used as references in the text. There's no consistency in Wikipedia articles in the use of section headings like "Notes", "References", "General references", "Bibliography" and "Further reading". As per WP:CITEVAR, a consistent citation style should not be changed unless it directly violates policies. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lac d'Ansabère, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pau. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Additional plastomes
Dear Manudouz,

I've spotted that you currently edited the list of sequenced plastomes. I'm not an expert in Wikipedia editing but I am in charge with molecular botany. There are some additional references for plastomes published in 2017:


 * Yan, M., Moore, M. J., Meng, A., Yao, X., & Wang, H. (2017). The first complete plastome sequence of the basal asterid family Styracaceae (Ericales) reveals a large inversion. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 303(1), 61-70.


 * Gao, C. W., & Gao, L. Z. (2017). The complete chloroplast genome sequence of semi-wild soybean, Glycine gracilis (Fabales: Fabaceae). Conservation Genetics Resources, 1-3.


 * Zhang, H., Hall, N., McElroy, J. S., Lowe, E. K., & Goertzen, L. R. (2017). Complete plastid genome sequence of goosegrass (Eleusine indica) and comparison with other Poaceae. Gene, 600, 36-43.


 * Zhang, Z. L., Ma, L. Y., Yao, H., Yang, X., Luo, J. H., Gong, X., ... & Sun, H. B. (2017). The complete chloroplast genome of Cupressus chengiana. Conservation Genetics Resources, 1-3.


 * Yang, Y., Wang, M., Lu, Z., Xie, X., & Feng, S. (2017). Characterization of the complete chloroplast genome of Carpinus tientaiensis. Conservation Genetics Resources, 1-3.


 * Vitelli, M., Vessella, F., Cardoni, S., Pollegioni, P., Denk, T., Grimm, G. W., & Simeone, M. C. (2017). Phylogeographic structuring of plastome diversity in Mediterranean oaks (Quercus Group Ilex, Fagaceae). Tree Genetics & Genomes, 13(1), 3.


 * Hu, Y., Woeste, K. E., & Zhao, P. (2017). Completion of the Chloroplast Genomes of Five Chinese Juglans and Their Contribution to Chloroplast Phylogeny. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7, 1955.


 * Donkpegan, A. S., Doucet, J. L., Migliore, J., Duminil, J., Dainou, K., Piñeiro, R., ... & Hardy, O. J. (2017). Evolution in African tropical trees displaying ploidy-habitat association: The genus Afzelia (Leguminosae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 107, 270-281.


 * Gichira, A. W., Li, Z., Saina, J. K., Long, Z., Hu, G., Gituru, R. W., ... & Chen, J. (2017). The complete chloroplast genome sequence of an endemic monotypic genus Hagenia (Rosaceae): structural comparative analysis, gene content and microsatellite detection. PeerJ, 5, e2846.

May I please kindly ask you to add them?

Best regards,

Alexey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alliumcepa (talk • contribs) 08:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Alexey, Thank you for bringing my attention to these references. I will try to incorporate the most representative ones. Manudouz (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Mesodinium nuclear code) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Mesodinium nuclear code, Manudouz!

Wikipedia editor Robert McClenon just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Interesting. If I am not mistaken, these ciliates, which have slightly different genetic codes, are eukaryotes just like we metazoans (but not quite like us in the genetic code)."

To reply, leave a comment on Robert McClenon's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Robert. Yes, you're right. We (metazoans) and ciliates are eukaryotes However, the evolutionary split with our unicellular relatives is probably as old as 1,000 million years! And there is an incredible diversity of subtle variations in alternative genetic codes among these ciliates. Manudouz (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Manudouz - That's a very long time ago by geological standards, well before the Cambrian explosion. I didn't realize just how different and diverse those ciliates are from us metazoans, as different as they can be and still be eukaryotes, a small world of their own.  Interesting.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Peritrich nuclear code) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Peritrich nuclear code, Manudouz! Wikipedia editor Insertcleverphrasehere just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you: "Needs expansion and additional references to establish notability." To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page. Learn more about page curation. InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for bringing this mini-project up to date! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC).


 * I also like your table, though the colour would need to be augmented with a textual cue, for accessibility reasons. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC).


 * Thank you Rich! About the colors, I just fit to the ones already and standardly used in the genetic code tables. All the best! Manudouz (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Mitogenome source
Hey, that's an awesome table of the mitogenome that you added to Mitochondrial DNA! Would it be possible to add the source you used? If you want, you can just link it here and I'll add it. A2soup (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much A2soup! I added the reference of the Cambridge Reference Sequence for the Homo sapiens complete mitochondrial genome. "Revised Cambridge Reference Sequence (rCRS): accession NC_012920", National Center for Biotechnology Information Retrieved on 20 February 2017. Manudouz (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Problem with your UPGMA explanation
I think you need to always go back to the first distance matrix to get your distances for the calculations. You use the working matrix to identify the closest taxa but you do not use those to calculate the next working matrix. The reason is you end up taking averages of averages (dividing by the number of taxa too many times). The third iteration shows the problem. The depth of each node is an estimate based on the arithmetic average of the distances of all individual taxa on either side. If you use the first distance matrix as you should, then that last node is (31+30+39+31+34+43)/6 = 34.667/2 = 17.335 deep and not 16.5. It will mess up some trees if you do it the way you state. I just covered UPGMA in class so I really need it fixed ASAP or I will use it as an example of how not to do it. I will let you take first crack at fixing it. Thanks, Jparcoeur (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Jparcoeur: many thanks for your comment. There are two ways to explain the method: either you build upon each iterative, smaller, working matrix as explained in the UPGMA page, or you come back to the initial matrix as you suggest. Both yield the same dendrogram. However, you did a typo mistake in your calculation. For example, for the last node, we have to average all 6 distances between (a, b, or e) and (c or d), i.e., [ (ac + ad) + (bc + bd) + (ec + ed) ] → [ ( 21 {but not 31 as you wrote} + 31 ) + ( 30 + 34 ) + ( 39 + 43 ) ] / 6 = 198 / 6 = 33. So the depth is 33 / 2 = 16.5. To better understand the importance of the third step, please compare UPGMA with WPGMA, and have a look on the second distance matrix update: thanks to the proportional average, the calculation of the new distance accounts for the larger size of the (a,b) cluster (two elements) with respect to (e) (one element). Finally, you might want to check the results with a web server, for example: DendroUPGMA, a dendrogram construction utility. All the best, Manudouz (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Manudouz, Yikes, I see that you are right. It does work both ways. I just have myself trained to think of it intuitively as each comparison between taxa being a separate measurement of where the node is. Thanks for straightening me out! Jparcoeur (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (LSU rRNA) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating LSU rRNA, Manudouz!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Looks good, just putting some tags on the talk page and adding a few references."

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Blythwood (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Myocastorini) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Myocastorini, Manudouz!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Note that not all named taxa necessitate their own article: newly proposed clades might better be discussed in Echimyidae, to provide better context and avoid re-inventing the wheel each time a new classification is proposed."

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Animalparty,
 * Many thanks for your comment.
 * I agree with you that one comprehensive article would be better than several isolated ones. However, if a page about a given taxon would always contain all the information about their subtaxa, such a page might also become quite heavy. Alternatively, when classifications are changing because they reflect and incorporate (new) phylogenetic information, — or "re-invent the wheel" as you mentioned —, it might be reasonable to define the corresponding taxonomic terms, and to open a dedicated page for them. Of course, this is not incompatible with having context provided in the page about the parental taxa. It might also facilitate navigation and internal linking in the taxoboxes. Yours sincerely, Manudouz (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Loxodes
Hello Manudouz: I saw that you edited the ref names for the citations I added to the article Loxodes. Thanks for taking the time to do this. I just wanted to point out that the ref names were added automatically when I used the Visual Editor, in case you're wondering where they came from. However I do understand how they are maybe too cryptic for editors who are directly editing in wiki markup. Unfortunately I'm not aware of a way to edit the ref name within the visual editor. Cheers, Kbseah (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Kbseah: thank you for the explanation about the automatic numbering of references reused. I think that the only way to edit the ref names is to switch between visual and source editors. All the best, Manudouz (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Johann Baptist Fischer) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Johann Baptist Fischer, Manudouz!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"I've added a source on his early life and family, an authority control statement and tag on the talk page. Hope that's OK."

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Blythwood (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Mitochondrial and Chloroplast DNA
Mitochondria and Chloroplasts are separate organelles, like the nucleus. Hence, imho their DNA is not cytosolic. Cheers, --Ghilt (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. However, because these organelles are located in the cytosol, their DNAs are often referred as to cytoplasmic, as opposed to a nuclear location. All the best, -- Manudouz (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the nucleus is in the cytoplasm as well (et comme tu veux, nous pourrions même continuer en français), --Ghilt (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the cytoplasm comprises the cytosol (= hyaloplasm) and the organelles. By definition, it therefore excludes the cell nucleus. -- Manudouz (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, cheers, --Ghilt (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Uncited additions to Paraphyly ignoring existing discussion on talk page
Hi, I was disappointed to see you had seen fit to make an undiscussed and uncited addition, reversion, and duplication of existing information to this article, ignoring the talk page discussion on exactly this matter. That is quite a lot of things that should really not have been done, so I have reverted your changes.

If you think there is any mileage in the list - I see you have severe doubts about it, which I would agree are extremely well justified - then feel free to join the talk page discussion and state your case. For what it's worth, an indiscriminate, uncited, impossible-to-complete list ticks just about all the "BIG NO-NO" boxes I can think of. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear Chiswick Chap, many thanks for your comment. However, I have a different opinion. The examples of paraphyletic groups given in the list are taxonomic terms that can be found in the biological literature. It is therefore appropriate for a reader to know their paraphyletic status, as well as the corresponding monophyletic groups. Of course, many of these examples have been provided without citation, but this can be improved. Moreover, in an encyclopedic perspective, it is informative to make available and to detail the paraphyly / monophyly information of numerous groups. The examples listed in the text provide a good overview on the paraphyly ; the additional examples in the list provide a fine-grained, complementary information. -- Manudouz (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Short descriptions
Hi there. I've reverted an edit to Sloth so that it conforms with WP:SHORTDESC, in particular the following points: Please take a look at the screen shot of the article viewed on a mobile device at WP:SHORTDESC to see how the short description is rendered. --Cornellier (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ... should be as brief as possible. A target of 40 characters...
 * ... the first point of contact for many readers, so it should be readily comprehensible.
 * ... some applications may abbreviate longer descriptions, the most important identifying information should be placed first.

Evil Scarecrow moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Evil Scarecrow, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... disco spinster   talk  19:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dislocation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sessility ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Dislocation check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Dislocation?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All right. The disambiguation link in the dislocation page has been replaced by 'For other uses of the adjective sessile, see sessile in zoology, sessile in botany, and sessile in medicine'. Manudouz (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Nucleic acid notation
The statement you keep "correcting" is in your head and not in the article. 89.107.6.24 (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop making changes until you have understood what you have read completely. 89.107.6.24 (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It would become a constructive discussion if you might provide some arguments about the complementarity of DNA / RNA bases. A discussion is open on the talk page about 'Nucleic acid notation'. Manudouz (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of taxa named by anagrams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hariota ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_taxa_named_by_anagrams check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_taxa_named_by_anagrams?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Tozzia


A tag has been placed on Category:Tozzia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cladogram of Manidae genera
Template:Cladogram of Manidae genera has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)