This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mrjulesd. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello. I strongly apologise to bother you, but if you do not mind, I would like to ask a question. Recently, I proposed to slighty rephrase the sentences regarding the Paulinella chromatophore to clarify that although it does not belong to the clade closely related to the Gloeomargarita, the term plastid is also applicable there, especially since it is considered a chloroplast. I do not know how to do it exactly, but I feel that this information might be useful for average readers. Perhaps you will find a proper solution to the problem, since I know you are an experienced Wikipedia user. Thank you. --Pinoczet (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Since I literally have no idea how to do it properly, I would be very grateful if you could add it. Thanks a lot! --Pinoczet (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help, I greatly appreciate it. Since Paulinella chromatophores descended from a different cyanobacterial endosymbiont, please note that this seems to be the only known exception to the theory postulating that all plastids can be traced back to a single symbiogenesis event (i.e., they share a common evolutionary origin and ancestry). Moreover, it is not clear whether the Paulinella symbiont is closely related to the ancestral chloroplast of other eukaryotes. --Pinoczet (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@Pinoczet: Well I meant to add your first point to Paulinella, but I have now! For your second point, is it in a source? It seems an obvious point, but Im not sure were it is. --Jules(Mrjulesd)19:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I found the following statement: Phylogenetic analysis of 16S rRNA showed that the chromatophores originated from marine αcyanobacteria from the Prochlorococcus/Synechococcus clade. In contrast, “classical” plastids of plants and algae evolved from an ancient unknown lineage of cyanobacteria (the source). Is it sufficient to support my second point? --Pinoczet (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, believe it or not, there is a potential problem with that source. The publisher Frontiers Media has been flagged as possibly WP:PREDATORY, and so risks being removed if added! I've seen this happen in the past. Also see User:JzG/Predatory/F. Instead I could just add [1] instead, which will not be controversial. It doesn't state that Paulinella plastids are from a different clade to the archaeplastida plastids, but Prochlorococcus/Synechococcus clade could certainly could be added. Jules(Mrjulesd)14:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, you are right. The source explicitly states that Paulinella plastids belong to a different clade than Archaeplastida plastids. That conclusion also affects the lead section of the article plastid, I believe. Well spotted! --Pinoczet (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Pinoczet: Woops I misread the source. It actually says It has previously been shown that neither the Paulinella host cell nor the chromatophores are related to the eukaryotic lineage containing primary plastids.. So it doesn't actually say that the plastids are unrelated, but rather that the Paulinella host and its plastid are unrelated to the first Archaeplastida host cell. So another source is needed I think. Jules(Mrjulesd)16:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I mean, at least that is how I understand the following statement: Phylogenetic analyses revealed … two moderately supported lineages, one combining the majority of the β-cyanobacteria including all plastids (branch 1 in Figure 1), the other containing Paulinella and the PS-clade nested within a radiation of a few β-cyanobacteria … (branch 2 in Figure 1). Paulinella is monophyletic with the PS-clade (branch 4). and the Figure 1. --Pinoczet (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know how to thank you. Thanks a lot for your help, I greatly appreciate it. To be honest, I was planning to create an article regarding structures produced by a Soviet biochemist, V. O. Kalinenko. I think it is a very interesting topic, but unfortunately I have given up so far. Firstly, I am a layman (i.e., just an amateur) and secondly, my knowledge of English is at an intermediate level. Either way, thank you so much for your kind words. Regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Pinoczet: Thanks! Let me know if you've got other suggestions, I don't promise I'll be prompt but I should get around to them at some point. Yeah wiki editing is definitely not for everyone, although I am fairly confident you'd make a good editor. I'm a native English speaker, but not really trained unless you count my degree in Pharmacy. Jules(Mrjulesd)17:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
If you find some time, here are the refs: 1, 2, 3. Those structures might be considered similar to Jeewanu protocells; the quotation: This article deals with the origin and creation of primary organisms. It describes the natural method of the formation of cells. Experiments carried out by Russian scientists are explained in which electrical currents are used to create living organisms. A process referred to as energobiosis is described. Photographs are given showing the various stages of development of these organisms (see: the source). Of course, I take it with a grain of salt, but nevertheless I think the structures themselves should have a Wikipedia article (similarly to "jeewanu"). --Pinoczet (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Pinoczet: Looks good, I knew you could do it! The main question I have is should this be a stand alone article? Or a section in the Jeewanu article? I'm no expert, but my feeling is that this is very similar to the Jeewanu, although you might disagree. Adding to the Jeewanu article means that it is far less likely to be deleted, and since it is mainly based on primary sources this could be a concern. Any thoughts on this? --Jules(Mrjulesd)13:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I was thinking about it, too. However, the problem is that these structures were obtained in a different way. I remember reading one more source material (by NASA), but unfortunately I cannot find it. --Pinoczet (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Update: I moved the 'draft' here. If you find some time, please feel free to make further changes, additions and adjustments. I will greatly appreciate your help. --Pinoczet (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Pinoczet: Yes I'll look into it at some point. I'm curious, but do you consider there to be a biological difference between these "Bio-like structures" and Jeewanu particle? If so, what do you think they are likely to be? --Jules(Mrjulesd)11:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. A major difference appears to be that the structures obtained by Kalinenko are inorganic molecules. Moreover, he claims that "nuclei" (similar to those of cells) have been formed inside them. Kalinenko's experiments were based on the usage of electric current (hence the term "energobiosis") to make the structures metabolise. On a side note, Kalinenko explicitly states that the experiments on coacervates failed because electricity was not involved there. To be honest, I personally take all this information with a grain of salt, to put it mildly. Nevertheless, I really feel it is worth having a Wikipedia article. At worst, it will be rejected or deleted. Kind regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I have copy edited your sandbox as requested, please feel free to revert if you're unhappy at all.
The only bit I didn't really get is "caudate rockets". What does that mean?
Although I'm not totally sure about it, if you wish to publish maybe you should go for it. I think the worse that will happen is that it could go to WP:AFD and get deleted.
You can put it directly in mainspace, but this is probably the riskiest approach.
A safer approach is to use WP:AFC. But you may have to wait a bit, and the reviewers could reject it.
I really don't know how to thank you. Now, it looks so much better. I have to admit that I also had trouble interpreting the term "caudate rockets"; however, it comes from an English translation of the Kalinenko's paper published by NASA. If I understand correctly, it means a shape resembling a rocket with a "tail" (compare: "caudate nucleus"). Yes, I know, I was the main author of that section of the article Protocell; I created it about a year ago, when I decided to give up writing a separate article on the subject. Regardless how this turns out, I would like to thank you very much for your help and support. It means a lot to me. --Pinoczet (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Pinoczet: I'd consider merging the content you've written in your sandbox with Protocell#Bio-like structures as I don't think there is enough content there or enough sources to make up a stand alone article. Also, I think a merge would look good. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
notability and fringiness - I can't find many references to the ideas outside of the initial papers, and the main independent follow-up seems to have disputed the key observations (e.g. that of them growing and multiplying, and nuclei-like structures).
tense and framing: It's still fine to cover from a historical standpoint, but given the lack of replication, we probably should avoid phrases in the present tense (e.g. The structures are reported to have...). Also some sentences are unclear as to whether they are describing observations at the time, or subsequent follow-ups, e.g. Some of the "amoebas" have turned out to be "predators".
I can't get hold of any of the Russian publications, if there are any online copies in archives somewhere, it'd be super valuable to link to them.
Especially for claims like that in the lead sentence inorganic structures... in distilled water. Were the structures actually found in distilled water or were they found in seawater and purified and transferred to distilled water? I'm pretty certain distilled water doesn't contain such structures.
If genuinely in distilled water, I suspect it's a case similar to Nicolaas_Hartsoeker's microscopy observations of homunculi. Again, fine to include in the article, but need to be made clear that it's science history rather than current science.
The lead should mention the date. There's a big difference between these observations being reported in the '60s versus today.
Regarding "caudate rockets", it's probably referring to cordite.
@Mrjulesd: Hi. I just wanted to let you know that the article has been accepted by a reviewer. Thanks a lot for your help and support. Also, please feel free to expand the content, if applicable, and make use of it. Regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Without your support, none of this would have been possible. If you find some time, the main issues, as expressed by GOCE members, can be checked here. I believe these are very helpful comments; thus, it might be reasonable to bear them in mind while planning future edits to the article. Anyway, thanks a lot once again. --Pinoczet (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Integrative and conjugative elements
Hi again. I hope you are doing well. I have created an informal draft version of a new article re. integrative and conjugative elements (ICEs). It can be checked here. If you find some time, please feel free to make further changes, additions and adjustments. I am interested in your opinion on this matter, too. I believe the subject is significant and should have a Wikipedia article. Thank you. --Pinoczet (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help, I greatly appreciate it. Now, I am wondering what the name of the article should be. Perhaps you would have any idea or suggestion? Regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I hope you are doing well. While reading the article Viroid, I found an interesting paper that describes the term retroviroid-like elements. These entities seem to be quite specific viroid-like RNAs, please check the following link: Plant Virology. Perhaps it should be mentioned there? If you find some time, I will be grateful for your help. Thanks a lot! Kind regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that a section on retroviroid elements has been created. Please feel free to expand it, if applicable. Thank you. Kind regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Hi Mrjulesd, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia, –Davey2010Talk17:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mrjulesd. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
