User talk:Jasu
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi there! Drop me a line. NEWEST ON TOP please. Jasu
Contents |
[edit] Gene article
Huge increase by User:Opabinia_regalis; many important sections added; statment headings changed to word headings; modern concept section removed without replacement?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gene&oldid=93314448
my comments and replies copied from his user page:
Dear Opabinia,
I like your rework of the article Gene. Maybe we can make this article feature standard again. I realise you are not a fan of statement headings as common in some textbooks, e.g. you changed "The genome contains most genes of an organism" to "The genome". I would like to argue that the longer statement headings are more thought-stimulating than the word headings you used. But I realise that this is a matter of taste. Maybe you can explain your preference for short headings.
Also, I would like to ask why you deleted the section on the evolving concepts of the gene without integration, replacement or comment? Or did I overlook it? I think it's very interesting information and the most up-to-date part of the article. Please explain.
Best, Jasu 11:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, the headers are easy - stylistic consistency. The vast majority of wikipedia articles use descriptive noun phrases as headers. (One of the cases where my biases agree with convention.) Shorter headers have a more 'encyclopedic' tone and make the TOC easier to read.
- More generally, I got distracted and never really finished what I was doing with that article, so it's not currently in what I'd consider good form. I think the stuff on DNA replication and inheritance needs compression; it has to be in the article to link Mendelian and molecular inheritance, but there's just too much off-topic material in there taking up space. I never did anything with 'evolutionary concept of a gene' either, and major topics - pseudogenes, lateral gene transfer, various issues surrounding the definitions of RNA genes, etc. - are missing. The content in the 'evolving concepts' section (reproduced on the talk page) had been flagged in a comment by another editor as being entirely too specific, and I agree. That sort of material should certainly be in the article - especially RNA-based inheritance - but that way of presenting it is awkward, especially in an article that's realistically going to be read mostly by high school students. Some of the other stuff might better be placed in gene regulation. I just never got around to that part of the rewrite.
- If you're interested in editing/expanding/improving this article, don't worry about me 'owning' it or anything - I was asked to review it in August and have been trying to punt it ever since :) Opabinia regalis 01:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
After your work on gene, will you be working on Gene Gene the Dancing Machine ?--Filll 02:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just a little bit :) Opabinia regalis 06:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A "small" challenge for you
Hi Jasu, it's me again. I nominated Medicine in Ancient Greece recently for Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week. It is this week's MCOTW. I was thinking in you because of your fine and quick work with the diagrams of Fauna and Flora. I have asked for a diagram that illustrates the Four humours for this article Medicine in Ancient Greece, that is... So I thought it might be a small challenge for you if you have a look at the article and create a diagram of the Four humours. I see that you have an interest also in medicine, so if you want to contribute to an article on a part of the history of medicine, you are welcome. Thanks anyway, though... --Francisco Valverde 20:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It's simple, but I think it looks good! Anyway, the diagram is just for that section, no need to get complex. Great "small" job...! Thanks once again!I have edited the caption and added links for each humour.--Francisco Valverde 18:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] In reference to Bio-barnstar proposal: What is the next move?
There was much talk lately about the bio-barnstar proposal, but these past 5 days there hasn't been more said. What is next? What is there to be done? Can we move this foward...? It is the first time I involve myself in a barnstar proposal and I do not know what is the procedure. I seem to read there is quite a support for a bio-barnstar and a considerable preference for the second proposal... Please, could someone tell me what next? Thanks.--Francisco Valverde 17:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for your kind words, I really apretiate them. Sometimes one can forget that this is a community... I am also very happy to be able to work with you and many others. I hope to continue the good work with you. I'd like to comment that in the case of the bio-barnstar, I really like the 2nd alternative compared with your design, but anyway, you've been a great help in this and it seems we will have a bio-barnstar after all...--Francisco Valverde 11:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bio-barnstar
Jasu, thanks for the explanation. Let me explain my thinking.
When you are representing something as a star, you are playing a numbers game: how many spikes does the star have, and what does that number represent. Examples of good numbers are 5 (kingdoms) and 3 (domains); I was also thinking about the logo of the Institute of Biology, which includes (I'm sorry the jpeg is such a low resolution) the principles of water as the elixir, the sun as the source of energy; water, land and air; mammal, bird and reptile; a crown with five spikes to represent the kingdoms; the tree of life; the Galapagos reptile as a reference to Darwin and the process of evolution; and probably several other elements that escape my mind now.
That's what I had at the back of my mind.
I'm happy with liquidGhoul's suggestion, which is elegant and easy even for children to grasp. It strikes me your design may be better suited as a molecular biology barnstar.
Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jasu! Thanks for the sollicitation, I didn't make myself very clear. I think that in its present shape, your barnstar proposal isn't easy to understand, particularly for non-biologists. The center being taken up by the cells , there's not much room left in the spikes for the other photos. I like LiquidGhoul's proposition, because it is simple, yet elaborate. I think a barnstar is too small to put too many things in it, and simplicity and aesthetics are the main concern. Trying to fit in the 5 kingdoms, etc., seems to me to be unnecessarily complex.
Attempting to suit every biologist on Wikipedia is a difficult task, but I think that a design derived from an animal or plant is general enough (and potentially pretty!) to work on something along these ligns, a bit like LiquidGhoul did. I don't know if it's possible to fit in both a plant and an animal, but that could be an idea.
Isn't it possible to have 2 or more barnstars for the same subject? Because in that case we could have an animal barnstar and a plant barnstar to choose from, for example. Please ask me if you need something, advice, help, or anything else. IronChris | (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] COTW Project
You voted for Fauna (animals), this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -Scottwiki 09:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Flora or Fat
Jasu, I think you voted for Fat instead of Flora (plants). Both are very close and I have also voted for both. Anyway, there has been discussion that Flora(plants) article is really a stub even though it has a considerable length. I have tagged Flora (plants) as a stub, as a first step to change it to a WP:COTW nomination. I personally believe there should be a complete re-write of the article. So if everyone agrees we could change the nomination to a WP:COTW. Fauna (animals) is at the moment a COTW candidate, so they could do an interesting pair... --Francisco Valverde 08:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out, Francisco. I had a weird error with firefox where the edit buttons would not open the section their were next to. Remedied. I voted for flora and fauna. They definitely go together as a pair - from the sound of the word and in common usage. Jasu 17:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bio-barnstar
| Image | Name | Description! |
|---|---|---|
 |
The Bio-Barnstar | Bio-Barnstar - suggestion for a new barnstar given in recognition of exceptional article contributions in the life sciences. from the barnstar proposal page |
It's meant to represent different areas of biology from 12 o'clock: neurons, fur (for mammals), yeast cells, EM of cell, light microscopy of cell. The centre is blastocyst injection. Consider this just a first draft. These things take a lot of time to design while you need hardly any time to criticise. So, please be kind and constructive. --Jasu 13:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your proposal for a bio-barnstar. I was going to propose it in the Biology Portal, but I still haven't got to it. What do you think? I was told that the Scientific barnstar already exists... but I was proposing that being the biology area so big we could have a bio-barnstar. Anyway, there is a wikispecies project, so it is big. I would like it, to be able to be used not only in the normal wikipedia but also in wikispecies. I think your barnstar looks good, but I was thinking in something more like an "egg and flower" barnstar: simbolizing animal and plant life... What do you think? Anyway, we could both propose this barnstar.
On another thing, I see you have special interest in biology. I would like to let you know that I have proposed Flora (plants) as WP:AID and also that Fauna (animals) has been proposed to WP:COTW. Your vote and any contribution to both articles would be great.
Thanks. --Francisco Valverde 17:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Your mention of flowers/fauna made me think that the graphic that I prepared does not yet include anything green & planty. An egg and a flower would be nice symbolism; the one that I sketched out is a bit closer to actual research - microscopy, cell culture, etc. Thanks for pointing out the two articles. I just voted for flora. It needs the improvement. I also wrote to ClockworkSoul - you talked to him on the barnstar proposal page - let's see what he says. Jasu 13:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have proposed the bio-barnstar to the Portal talk:Biology. Let's see if we can move this barnstar foward and gather more support, I had left the idea a little bit behind this last week. --Francisco Valverde 17:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
