User talk:Pinoczet
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Pinoczet, and welcome to Wikipedia!
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute and don't forget to have some fun!
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. In fact, you can create your own right here. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage. Again, welcome! --BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Earliest known life forms
[edit]Hello:
I had a look at those paragraphs as you asked and made a few minor changes to punctuation. The rest looks fine. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
This sentence: "… it is possible to postulate the existence of a last universal common ancestor (LUCA), for which no specific fossil evidence exists"
is fine. Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Plastid and Paulinella
[edit]Hi I've added your suggestions to the body text of the above articles. I hope you like.
The more I think about it the more I think you've got what it takes to be a Wikipedia editor. If anything you've got more tenacity than me at looking through sources, I tend to skim through them as my attention span is low. I'm not saying that I don't mind helping you, or that wiki editing is for everyone, but if you need any pointers I can probably help you out. If you fancy it go for it!--Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Bio-like structure has been accepted
[edit]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Boghog (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)- @Pinoczet: thanks for your note. Well done, I'm glad it got through. Well I might add to it at some point, perhaps some minor copy editing would help. Cheers --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Bio-like structure
[edit]Hello:
I've run through this for you and made a few changes. I've also left a masked comment which you can see when the article is in edit mode suggesting you add when and where the expedition took place.
Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Definite article
[edit]- Thank you very much. I would like to take this opportunity to ask one more question. Is it necessary to use the definite article the in the following sentence (before described conditions):
It has been implied that the conclusions were drawn due to too little critical attitude as it seemed impossible to create a cell under [the] described conditions.
? PS. The sentence has been taken from the section Scientific reviews of the article. Kind regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct. I should have included it. My apologies. I rewrote the whole sentence completely in a way that might more clearly explain the subject. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Integrative and Conjugative Elements
[edit]Hey there! Firstly, the apology is most definitely not required, it's great to hear from you and about ICEs. It's actually really related to what I'm about to start working on in the next stage of my career so can certainly read into it and see if its worth it's own page or perhaps is covered elsewhere as more of a subheading. I could start working on it in a few weeks time (currently very busy) - thanks for getting in touch.
Toby Brann (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well I think you've done it again, its excellent. I have done some ref conversions via Biomedical citation maker (see Help:Citation tools) and also some copy edits (please reverse if you don't like them). Looking forward to see this as an article! --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Integrative and conjugative element has been accepted
[edit]Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
–Novem Linguae (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For writing a very nice WP:AFC article, Integrative and conjugative element, that had no problems and was very easy to accept. This is very impressive for a newer editor. Keep up the good work, my friend. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC) |
Integrative and conjugative element
[edit]Hello:
I've run through it, made a few minor tweaks. Looks good. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Your query re italics
[edit]Hello:
To be honest, I am not 100% sure. Checking some of them on line I find they are sometimes italicized and sometimes not. Do either of these help? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms or Bacterial taxonomy If not, perhaps leave a query on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology. Sorry I can't be definitive on this. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Retroviroid-like elements
[edit]Hello Pinoczet! I too hope you are well, it has been some months! Regarding your query about retroviroid-like elements, it seems a fascinating subject, I think likely not enough to warrant an entire new page but I believe we can probably add a section or note within Viroid which, fortunately, I can probably do next week as I am remarkably free!
Many of the sources I have found on the subject seem to be early 2000s or late 1990s, I wonder if maybe the interest in the subject waned or maybe they were later reclassified - I shall do some digging!
Thanks for the message. Toby Brann (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello Again, So I've set about exploring the subject and I'm inclined to think that we be better off with a subheading of Viroid in which we discuss retroviroids and within that perhaps mention retroviroids. This is because retroviroid like elements are, in my opinion, too dissimilar to viroids without first mentioning retroviroids. Hopefully I can get a preliminary section going soon. Thanks, Toby Brann (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Pinoczet, thanks for saying you were a fan of the edit, it was a fairly interesting thing to research so thanks for pointing it out! Regarding your most recent proposed edit, I presume you're proposing a subsection of plasmid? It might also fit quite nicely in properties and characteristics or perhaps classifications and types as well? I don't hate the current draft but alot of the information is not specific to retroplasmids - extrachromosomal.
To clarify non-infectious you refer to the fact they don't contain infection enhancing genes? Encapsidated - do you mean to say some of the retroplasmids are enclosed in a protein shell, if so fascinating! Do get back to me and we can together shape a nice bit of a text about retroplasmids!
Plasmid
[edit]Hello: I've had a look at the section for you (Plasmid) and made only one minor punctuation change and added a WP link in the citation. It looks good. Regards Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Class III TE's
[edit]Hello Pino! Apologies for my absence, I have been a touch busy! Funny you should ask me about transposable elements, they are actually my current field of study. Having said that I've actually never heard about Class III TEs and the 1988 source, it is fair to say is out of date. I will try have a hunt and see if there is recent mention of Class III elements as its not great to have such archaic research presented on the article if it is indeed only an ancient term. I will have a hunt around and get back to you with my opinion. Toby Brann (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello again! I have to admit I've enjoyed looking this one up! I've tried to find mention of class III TE's in the literature. Painfully, I can't access the 1988 source you provided (I am between institutions at the moment so may simply not have access) however I struggle to find any sort of corroboration.
I have found the occasional reference to MITEs as a Class III TE (http://grupo.us.es/gfnl/dna/genetic_ingeniering/transposons.htm), however I'm not entirely sure I see the distinction between MITEs and class II elements, which they seem to be similar to and often classified as (Feschotte, C., Swamy, L. and Wessler, S.R., 2003. Genome-wide analysis of mariner-like transposable elements in rice reveals complex relationships with stowaway miniature inverted repeat transposable elements (MITEs). Genetics, 163(2), pp.747-758. AND https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2874221/). Perhaps they are often refered to as Class III simply due to the poorer understanding we currently have of their mode of replication, I can perhaps only postulate that a 1988 source would have an even poorer understanding as such lean towards a novel classification.
This seems to be the verdict of Petersen and Seberg (Petersen, G. and Seberg, O., 2000. Phylogenetic evidence for excision of Stowaway miniature inverted-repeat transposable elements in Triticeae (Poaceae). Molecular biology and evolution, 17(11), pp.1589-1596.) in that Class III is a more ambiguous classification for those which we do not fully understand.
This is an interesting concept and could be mentioned on some of the pages, such as on TEs to explain the definition of these. In addition maybe on MITEs to explain we don't fully understand the process by which they replicate?
Either way, good question and I'm glad my not having an understanding of class III makes sense given the definition! Toby Brann (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello again Pino! Interesting to see a more recent reference to Class III, good find! I would probably say that this amount definitely worth a reference within the |TE article. It would be good, like Baez (2017) does, just emphasise that Class III seems like a pretty liquid and dynamic definition for a TE, more a refuge for a mish mash of TEs as opposed to a more formal classification like Class I / II.
I agree with your second message re: the position of the edit, classification would be an ideal place for this to go. Depending on your thoughts, we could try put together a page for Class III TEs in the future given their apparent relevance. Toby Brann (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Pino, Thanks for the message, I will add it to my TO DO list however I'm taking up a new role so it might be a little while on my end, fear not though. I will get it done. Toby Brann (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)