User talk:Zorahia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello, Zorahia, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or Insert-signature.png or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! – Callanecc (talk)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Biology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian Wolff (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Binomial nomenclature, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Specific epithet and Specific name (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thallophyte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ferns (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flagellate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bodo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Biological life cycle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Development (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Habit (biology) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • (terrestrial, arboreal, aquatic, marine, freshwater, benthic, pelagic, nektonic, planktonic, etc), (carnivorism, period of activity (diurnal, nocturnal), types of ecological association, etc.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Habit (biology) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Marine, Liane and Free-living
Plant life-form (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Bush and Cryptophyte

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

List of organisms by chromosome count[edit]

I reverted your changes to List of organisms by chromosome count. It's not clear what you are trying to accomplish there. It's a massive change, please discuss this and the reasons for wanting the changes (which at first glance seem unrelated to chromosome count) in the talk page before doing this again. Thanks, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Death, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colonial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phytochorion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Formation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chromista, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chlorophyll c (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Taxonomy of invertebrates (Brusca & Brusca, 2003), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Articulata and Athecata (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, busy[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to mention that I keep trying to find time to look at the extensive edits you've been making about biological life cycles. My life is just a bit too frantic at present, to give this matter the thought it requires. Sorry. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monas (genus), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bodo. 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) 09:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Template test[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for February 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nomenclature codes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ICZN (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Amoeba[edit]

Hello, Zorahia. It's good to see someone taking an interest in the protist pages. They receive far too little attention, and the Amoeba article does need work. You seem to have a good understanding of amoeboid taxonomy, and access to good sources.

However, your recent edits have introduced a large number of problems, including textual discontinuities, organizational confusion, and major mistakes of grammar, spelling and diction. You have removed material that gave context to later paragraphs (notably, the passage introducing the reader to the now-obsolete Sarcodina). You've introduced new content that disrupts the purpose of entire sections. For instance, it makes no sense to introduce matter pertaining to contemporary classification (such as the place of Laybyrinthula within Stramenopiles/Heterokonta) in a section devoted to describing the old classification system. In that same section, you've inserted a random assortment of taxa, such as Cercomonas and Ascetosporea, that have been moved to new groups as a result of recent phylogenetic work. However, these updated classifications properly belong in the section which follows, entitled Modern Classification. And indeed, both taxa are also included there, in their proper places (although the existing table uses the synonym Heterokonta for Stramenopiles).

The errors of spelling and style are very numerous, and will require a lot of work to correct. I would invest some time in repairing these mistakes, if I thought the structural changes improved the existing article. However, I am not convinced that they they do, so it might be more efficient to simply revert the changes and start over, after discussing areas in which the article could be improved.

It is customary, when doing major edits like this, to discuss the changes on the Talk page, and explain your decisions. Remember, others have done work on this page, and might like to know why you've removed paragraphs, etc. I don't mean to discourage your work. As I've said, the article needs attention, and it's good to see someone at least attempting to improve it! :) Deuterostome (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. The problem here is that I think the most efficient way to improve the article is to begin by reverting most of your changes, and then start over(with appropriate discussion and explanation of changes on Talk:Amoeba). I'm reluctant to destroy your work, but untangling the problems that have been introduced will be quite time-consuming, since the problems are organizational, and not just matters of orthography and style. Would you be willing to roll back the changes, and then introduce improvements in a more orderly way? I like some of your ideas, such as the inclusion of a History section (similar to the one I added to Amoeba (genus), when it was still called, simply, "Amoeba"). Deuterostome (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've reverted the edits, as discussed (I left the first one, putting Pawloski in external links). If it is OK with you, I am happy to rewrite the Classification section, incorporating some of the material from your edits. The result must be easy for the non-specialist to understand, since the Amoeba article is often consulted for school projects. Deuterostome (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Re. your comments w/ respect to specialist/non-specialists: I strongly agree! There is lots of room for technical detail, especially when it is well organized and set apart in well labelled sections (this isn't Simple English Wikipedia, after all). A good example is the wikitable outline of amoeboid groups, which provides a convenient way of putting a lot of technical matter in a concise form (of course, it will need to be updated regularly, as new phylogenetic information becomes available). However, we do have to allow non-specialists to gain a quick understanding of the subject without being bewildered and dazzled by discussions of unfamiliar taxa. As you may know, this article was originally called Amoeboids(it was renamed at my request, and the previous Amoeba article was moved to Amoeba (genus)). The change was needed, because of a basic confusion between the genus and the cell type. However, the article has not yet been fully adapted to its new role, and is still somewhat confusing to users who come to Wikipedia for information help with their homework! I think there are ways to accomplish that without over-simplifying or misrepresenting the subject. Deuterostome (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm just writing to acknowledge your post to Talk:Amoeba. I've been working on revising the article (especially the History & Classification section), and will try to incorporate your work. I should mention that I have doubts about your section on the dismantling of Sarcodina, especially since your list is a chimerical construct, with matter taken from both Page's rather old article and Pugachev's more recent classification (which accords w/ molecular phylogeny, and doesn't include the obsolete taxon Rhizopoda). The proper place for parallel presentation of multiple classification schemes is Wikispecies, where Page's old system is already included under Rhizopoda and Pugachev's under Protista.

In any case, the "fate" of groups previously included in Sarcodina is already addressed in the article, in the wikitable which shows the various supergroups into which the old taxa have been placed. That table can updated, and indeed should be. For instance, Chromalveolata is probably polyphyletic, and Stramenopiles/Heterokonta now sits alongside Alveolata and Rhizaria (in a probable clade sometimes referred to as SAR). If there are groups you think should be included in the table, it would not be hard to insert them.

As an aside, I notice that the old wikitable doesn't cite any sources, and that should probably be rectified. I'd suggest harmonizing it with the Revised Classification of Eukaryotes, Adl et al., 2012, which is very thorough, reasonably up to date and as close to a "consensus" view as we are likely to get. However, checking all the taxa will be a lot of work! Deuterostome (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)