User talk:Mrjulesd/Archive 7

Happy New Year, Mrjulesd!


Happy New Year! Mrjulesd, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

– Davey 2010 Talk 00:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Your reject is illogical
Over at Wikibooks you rejected -- without explanation -- my edit here. Did you actually read it? I changed "However, new evidence suggests that the Maori were a group of mainland Maori who migrated from New Zealand to the Chatham Islands..." to "However, new evidence suggests that the Moriori were a group of mainland Maori who migrated from New Zealand to the Chatham Islands...". The former basically says Maori were Maori. The latter says Moriori developed from Maori from NZ. That's the actual point or the sentence. Moriori (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Moriori, apologies I do a lot of reviewing their and do make the odd mistake. I have self-reverted. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 22:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Organisms et al.
Hello. Thank you for your edit; I feel that the Template reorg made by you is accurate. I strongly apologise to bother you, but I would like to know your opinnion. What do you think about changing transposon → transposable element? Recently, I have read the discussion on the article's Talk page; there are arguments that the latter should rather be used when referring to transposons. If so, please feel free to correct it in the Template. Thanks, --Jojnee (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Jojnee thanks for your comments, and its fine to ask me about things too. Well transposon was moved to transposable element quite a while ago, and the link in the template directly links to transposable element. So for the link to say transposable element rather than transposon would be fine and uncontroversial I feel. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 13:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. I would like to ask you for an opinnion on proposed expanding the Protocell entry with models of protocells (for further reading). There are several models, and only some of them gained support within scientific community. I feel there is no need (in fact, even such possibility seems unreal) to include all of them. Thus, I am thinking about a proper way to proceed while not mislead readers these are the complete list of artificial models. My current proposition is: (deleted). The sources I used include (but are not limited to): 1. S. C. Rastogi (2006), Cell And Molecular Biology, pp. 547-548; 2. Dean Kenyon, Arie Nissenbaum (1976), Melanoidin and aldocyanoin microspheres: Implications for chemical evolution and early precambrian micropaleontology, Journal of Molecular Evolution 7(3):245-51; 3. Salehi-Reyhani, Ali; Ces, Oscar; Elani, Yuval (2017). Artificial cell mimics as simplified models for the study of cell biology, Experimental Biology and Medicine 242 (13): 1309–1317; 4. María de los Ángeles Gama Fuertes (2007), Biologia 1 - Sep"un Enfoque Constructivista", Tom 1, pp. 77-78; 5. Caren, Linda D.; Ponnamperuma, Cyril (1967). A review of some experiments on the synthesis of 'Jeewanu' (PDF). NASA Technical Memorandum X-1439. Moffett Field, California: Ames Research Center. Thanks for help, --Jojnee (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Jojnee personally I wouldn't try to clutter the template too much. The thing is, it is only marginally related to the origins of life; it really focuses on accepted organisms and organism-like entities. Although there are arguments to add Jeewanu and Proteinoid to the "See also" section, as these are hypothetical particles that may have influenced the origin of life.
 * Note that there is already the nav template Template:Origin of life, and I think overall it would make more sense to expand that one with these sort of links I feel. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 13:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I feel you are right it might have been too much, especially since there are many different "protocell" models. Now, I am planning to include only the entries which (a) are considered as major protobiont models by cell biology academic books and (b) have their own Wikipedia articles. I just feel it will be helpful for someone who would search through the "See also" section. Still, when I publish an update, feel free to correct/change/delete it.


 * Hope it'll be more accurate. I will look into "Origin of life" navbox, too. Thanks once again, I strongly appreciate your help. Regards, --Jojnee (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Norseman (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norwegian ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Norseman_%28disambiguation%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Norseman_%28disambiguation%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Organisms et al.
Hello. I apologise for bothering you once again, but I don’t see anyone who I could discuss the subject with, especially you’re an experienced user (and a very nice person, too). Hope you don’t mind it. Recently, I’ve probably found a small error. According to the template, satellites contain two satellite viruses groups: ssRNA satellite viruses and dsDNA satellite viruses (or "virophages"), while a new update of the Satellite (biology) article mentioned the third group—ssDNA satellite viruses (i.e. 2 species within the genus Dependoparvovirus). I haven’t got enough knowledge of the topic, so I decided to ask about it. It’s not a very significant mistake, and basically rather a matter of listing completness. Thanks a lot in advance. Greetings, —Jojnee (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Jojnee well I do try to be nice :). Well I think I agree with you with what you're saying, there does seem to be an omission from the template. I'm not exactly an expert on biological satellites, but generally speaking nav templates should reflect article content, which should be sourced, and Dependoparvovirus is. So if you add it it would seem to be an improvement, well spotted really. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 20:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help, my friend. :) Greetings, --Jojnee (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Since the original creator of the template slightly changed its scope and title (to include only Life and—a bit vague category, I think—"Non-cellular life"), I just decided to retrieve the previous concept and recreate it as a new template (e.g. to avoid any potential edit wars). I tried my best to do so, especially because I strongly feel it can be useful for readers and has its potential as a navibox. I hope that you share my feelings on this matter. If you want, please feel free to make use of the template (perhaps it could be added to some articles or so?). Either way, thank you once again for all your support, I appreciate it. :) Have a nice day! --Jojnee (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Jojnee thanks for your message. Well I think what you did was a reasonable way thing to do, certainly better than an edit war. But I can't help feeling that two very similar templates is less than ideal. Now I did revert the change at Template:Organisms et al. as I feel it was vastly superior; however I reverted that change when I noticed you had created Template:Organisms and comparable organic structures. Now I've been thinking about ways forward, and I feel that maybe a WP:MERGE discussion might be the best way forward. Now if the template were merged, it would contain the links from both, and would essentially go back to the previous design. How do you feel about that? Another option would be a WP:RFC, which can be useful in these sort of situations. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 00:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I decided to create the new navbox only due to the Organisms et al. original creator proposal in his edit summary, and to avoid any potential edit wars. However, I have to admit I share your opinnion. For me, the best possible way would be to merge the templates, and include both their content in one place. In fact, as you said, it’d mean the return to the previous concept, especially because one of them is (de facto) a part of the second template. To be honest, it feels a bit disproportionate to divide viruses in such details while not including, let’s say, bacterial phyla at all (which of course would be completely redundant), but that’s a different problem. It seems the Organisms et al. template (in its current form) could be just described/renamed as "Living organisms and viruses" or sth like that, whereas the second template contains much more information. And I think the information is reasonable and really useful as well. That’s my point of view. Either way, I’ll support you in whatever decision you make. :) --Jojnee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Jojnee and Mrjulesd. I have reconsidered my decision and restored the links in question, albeit structured differently to before. Sorry for the fuss and confusion. I am happy to cooperate to find a scope and structure that satisfies everyone as much as possible. Please feel free to make/discuss further changes as desired.


 * In response Jojnee's comment about listing different virus taxa but not different bacterial taxa, etc. this is because it is known that all bacteria share a common ancestor but the same is not true for viruses. Any virus taxa that do not share any higher taxa signifies that the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses is yet to find any convincing evidence that they are at all related. In other words, it is probable that "virus" is just a descriptive term for non-cellular nucleic-acid-carrying infectious agents, and consists of multiple evolutionarily independent lineages.Ypna (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jules, I made some minor changes in Template:Self-replicating organic structures. The only thing I’m thinking about is to remove any re-colors. In the original version, it seemed reasonable to distinguish some entries ("Life dependent", "Virus dependent"), but currently it feels completely random, I guess. What do you think? Thank you for all your support and cooperation, I strongly appreciate it. Cheers, --Jojnee (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * hi again. Yes that would be fine. However I have got one request: can we use Template talk:Self-replicating organic structures for further discussions? Keeping them in one place would be beneficial I feel, and you can "ping" me if you want to make sure I see it. But thanks also for your input on the matter, I'm happy that we're making progress. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 11:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * on second thoughts, do message me here if you prefer it. Not too important where you message me really. Also I've made a lot of changes, please input on the matter as you see fit. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 14:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message. You’ve made a huge effort to expand the content, I appreciate it. Now, Template:Self-replicating organic structures can be clearly distinguished from Template:Organisms et al., and I truly believe there are good reasons as well as enough space to keep them both, one aims at the life beigns/organisms perspective, whereas the other at the self-replication point of view. I have to admit you divided them between various articles in a very, very reasonable way (incl. their co-existence in some places). We probably gained the best of possible results here, I believe. PS. Perhaps it would be a good decision to change Template:Organisms and comparable organic structures to redirect to Organisms et al.? It seems more accurate now, I guess. :) Thanks for everything! --Jojnee (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * well thanks to you as well! A really good idea to fork it so it could be developed. I think I agree with you about the two templates being different enough that they are both valid. Remeber if you want to make changes WP:BEBOLD and go for it! I will alter that redirect as you suggested. Best wishes --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 16:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Help:Wikitext § pre
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. of Help:Wikitext resulted in a Stripped tag lint error for. Copying into Special:ExpandTemplates the block

The  markup stays in, so the pre tag isn't seen as a pre tag, so its closing tag is flagged as stripped.

I'm wondering if your markup is really correct or if it works in spite of being wrong. You probably understand this better than I do. It is not normal for proper markup to generate lint errors, although it does happen sometimes.

For more about lint errors, please check out WP:Linter. You may find the lintHint tool to be essential to dealing with lint errors. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Anomalocaris. Well I'm sure that it's a lint error as you say. But in this case I think it's worth it: it fixes the problem with the parser pre tag stripping out markup. Now in many cases this is a good thing, but not if you want to include markup within pre tags. This technique is commonly used within templates: see for example Template:Pre which uses the same technique, see the  at the beginning; also see wikibooks:Template:Pre and many others. Since this is something that could be very helpful to people I think it should stay; the markup does work and is used in many templates on multiple wikimedia projects, so is unlikely to be problematic.  --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 10:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Your UTRS Account
You have no wikis in which you meet the requirements for UTRS. Your account has been removed and you will be required to reregister once you meet the requirements. If you are blocked on any wiki that UTRS uses, please resolve that before registering agian also. -- DQB (owner / report) 08:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, just clicked a UTRS link out of curiosity. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 08:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Tandem repeat
Hello. Thank you for your recent edits in Template:Repeated sequence, it’s an obvious improvement. If you don’t mind, I’d like to discuss the following topic… It seems reasonable to make the Tandem repeat article’s scope more clear for readers, i.e., it shouldn’t be confused with the "tandemly arrayed genes". Basically, tandem repeats mean "satellite" sequences (Satellite DNA, minisatellites, microsatellites…), whereas "tandem genes" are, for example, rDNA genes. The difference is well described in a Nature article. I’m thinking about a solution, either expanding the article’s name, e.g. "Tandem repeat (Satellite sequence)", or adding a clarifying footnote above the introduction(?). I would be interested in your opinnion. Thanks a lot! --Jojnee (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I agree with your point. Well it could be done, but I think it might be done with a hatnote best personally. For example you could have which would produce "Not to be confused with Tandemly arrayed genes" at the top of the page.  --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 20:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ I edited some articles, too. It seemed reasonable and necessary to explicitly distinguish tandem repeats vs. "tandem arrays". Thank you very much for your help! --Jojnee (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eukaryote, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cell ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Eukaryote check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Eukaryote?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Afroasiatic languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Semitic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Help
I am new to Wikipedia could you please tell me how to edit?
 * Hi there. Well there's a lot to learn. I would start by making basic fixes to article; see Help:Cheatsheet for the basis of wikitext. After that see Help:Getting started for tutorials and introductions, these may help you. Jules  (Mrjulesd) 19:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
  "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,  I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) is wishing you a  Merry Christmas. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove. Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.