Hello, Xook1kai Choa6aur! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Decibert (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then show me one please. Do you realize that your edit reintroduced factual error? Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk)
Here is a run-on sentence you created with this diff: "Archaea have, in the past, been classed with bacteria as prokaryotes, this classification is outdated." Commas are not used to separate complete independent clauses. Either a conjunction or a semi-colon is needed. I did not reintroduce factual error, since there was no factual error. If you believe there is such an error, please present it on the Talk:Archaea page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concern
Hi, Xook1kai Choa6aur. It's always good to see a new editor contributing to articles on molecular biological subjects. It's especially good to see one who clearly cares about the subjects whose articles they contribute to as much as you! However, Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, and by definition anything we do here requires us to work with others. A very important part of this is simply being as civil and courteous as possible, even (or especially) when it's difficult. I've been around here a long time, and I've seen many good editors simply give up because they found it too frustrating to collaborate (or others to collaborate with them). Please don't be one of those. – ClockworkSoul02:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: DNA Sequencing
Hi Xook1kai, and thanks for discussing. Thanks for using detailed edit summaries, too.
The machine you're referring to sounds like it can do a large number of sequencing reactions in a day, thus reading huge amounts of sequence. But the paragraph you removed was referring to each individual sequencing reaction. I'm passingly familiar with recent advances in DNA sequencing techniques and automation methods, but my understanding is that we still can't reliably sequence much more than about 1000 nucleotides in a single sequencing read. In other words, the contents of one reaction vessel, using one primer, resulting in one DNA sequence trace, still reads no more than about 1000 nucleotides. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs)07:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...millions of DNA sequence reads in a single run" are the key words. One run of the machine performs a huge number of individual sequence reads. Each individual read is still limited to around 1000 bases or less. The "reaction" referred to at DNA_sequencing#Large-scale sequencing strategies corresponds to a single sequence read, not a full run of a big sequencing machine. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs)05:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I understand your comment, but it doesn't seem relevant. I'm not disputing that it's possible to sequence efficiently using shorter reads. Large DNA fragments may be cloned before being sequenced, but even for a very large cloned piece of DNA, an individual sequencing read won't be much longer than 1000 bases. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs)06:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncommented reversions
XC, Malljaja is editing in good faith and has made the effort to put explanations in the edit summaries. Three times reverting without comment ([1], [2], [3]) is disruptive and bordering on edit warring. And please don't mark this kind of edit as minor - it's disrespectful to the person you're reverting. Would you kindly either undo your reversions, or at least explain your reasoning at the appropriate talk pages? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs)14:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been pointed out to you, you should not remove content from your talk page.
I'll address your points in turn:
Could you please point to to this person explanation already on the talk pages. The links explain not only why word "separation" is improper but also document how this error was inserted.
Malljaja can see the talk page as well as you or I can. The problem is that your post does not explain the problem you perceive in a way myself or other editors can understand.
About the PCR fragment source interpretation. Is it possible to average size of typical length on one source? If it is possible than edit point to, the biggest size, in context of sentence "the typical size". If the goal is to find the UP TO size as was rephrased, then how the following UP TO follow the next sentence (which is 4 x longer). In fact PCR to amplify very short DNA is useful too and the typical size depends on applications. Factually average typical PCR product over all publications may be possible but who is going to do this? .
Let's focus on your editing behavior for now. Did you read the link about edit warring I sent you?
Minor/Major common interpretation is/was that "editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute" (what I certainly believe) and assumed disrespect based on factual disagreement (the links) has to be objected. Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Malljaja had legitimately disputed your edit, and you were aware of that. You can't claim your edit could never be the subject of a dispute after someone has disputed it.
Xook1kai Choa6aur, I appreciate that you've made an effort to use talk pages and discuss things, and I thank you for contributing your time to this project. But I need to be honest with you. Most of your contributions have been reverted by a number of different editors, and you've had little impact on this project for the amount of time you've spent. So I wonder if your time would be better spent elsewhere. With respect, the problem has been largely that your limited English skills have made it difficult for you to engage with other editors, or to improve articles without extensive revision by others. I would suggest you consider coming back to Wikipedia in a couple of years or so, after giving yourself time to improve your English. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs)17:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do any more reverting on the main article. Thanks for copying it to the talk page - hopefully now there will be a discussion and you will take part in it. If you revert again soon you'll be at 3RR - have you read WP:3RR? Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
20:20, 6 Sep. Added {failed verification} + reinserting {POV}. If reinserted POV template in this edit may be counted as revert, then this edit may be a third revert. But is it ?
