User talk:Velayinosu

Hi Velayinosu! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Velayinosu. Welcome to Wikipedia! I see you've been doing some great work, updating Wikipedia's coverage of the ICTV 2019 taxonomy release. This is very appreciated. To standardise the articles you've been creating, you may like to learn how to create talk pages and how to include virusboxes (just copy some of my recent edits). You may also be interested to join WikiProject Viruses where like-minded people discuss and coordinate on anything virus-related. Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Thank you. Ypna (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm focused on updating the taxonomy but I'll definitely join the project sometime in the near future. Velayinosu (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Kirbanzo. I noticed that you recently removed content from Flaviviridae without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Narnaviridae, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. --Killarnee (T•1•2) 00:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Soybean vein necrosis virus, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries to explain why you're making your changes, and please cite sources for everything you do. There's no way to tell if your edits are correct without specialized knowledge. Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"all I did was change the taxobox to the virusbox" Then say so, and say why that's the right thing to do. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Please discuss radical deletions such as you did here [1] Graham Beards (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Adenoviridae, you may be blocked from editing. Stop making large edits without putting a good summary in the submission box Lars.Dormans (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please use edit summaries? You have been asked before but you are still not complying [2].Graham Beards (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to use them for the edits when I delete a lot but I'll try to leave edit summaries for all of my edits from now on. Velayinosu (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Nucleocytoplasmic large DNA viruses. It is a very bad idea to delete everything just because some grouping has been updated. The NCLDV grouping still lives on, and a page move is the preferred way to handle these renamings. Artoria2e5 🌉 06:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a lot of issues that I tried to fix by restarting it under the new articles that have taken its purpose. I disagree with the way you've taken Nucleocytoviricota but I'm not going to start an edit war over it. Velayinosu (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similar concerns with your edit on Ambidensovirus - perhaps the taxon may be obsolete and warrants new articles for genera, but the existing referenced content probably still has historic value and should not have been deleted outright. Dl2000 (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dl2000 I based how I dealt with this article on how others like it have been dealt with, e.g. Flexiviridae. But definitely I will try to transfer the information that can be retained to the immediately higher taxon Densovirinae. New articles for the new genera aren't needed at the moment. Velayinosu (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for the fixes to Bat virome! Enwebb (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and good job on the article. Velayinosu (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Virus Barnstar
		For thoroughly improving Wikipedia's coverage of the ICTV 2019 taxonomy release, such as Duplodnaviria. Ypna (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ypna Thank you for the barnstar. There's still some updating that I'll get around to but right now I'm working on the realm articles. I like the image you made for Duplodnaviria. It does a good job of showing their relation. Velayinosu (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; yes I made it to emphasise the similarities in capsid and portal. See you around. Ypna (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi — it seems you've completely rewritten the article on Echovirus, but didn't provide much of an explanation as to your thinking behind this. Perhaps you could come on the talk page and shed some light on this? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few days after a WP:Requested move discussion was closed in which you had participated, you moved the article back to its previous title. Obviously you were aware that this was contrary to the declared consensus, because you had been part of the discussion. Please don't do that. If you don't like the outcome of a an RM discussion, you can find the appeal process described at WP:Move review. (I refer, of course, to the RM at Severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus.) —BarrelProof (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The move amounts to you imposing your personal preference on it and not any sort of policy or guideline (also, it is dishonest to say there was consensus in the move discussion). Organisms that have hyphens in their name is not mentioned in the MOS, and I have brought this up on the MOS talk page if you want to talk about it there. On Wikipedia, it is standard to follow the ICTV for virus articles to promote better organization and avoid disputes and a lot of bureaucracy. Since the hyphen in virus names is already standard, moving to a dash violates consensus that has been established long before the move discussion occurred, so the articles will be kept with the hyphen until the MOS is clarified. Velayinosu (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are not very familiar with how Wikipedia works, since you have only been editing here for less than three months (although you seem to have exhibited a remarkably steep learning curve in that period). I referred to a "declared consensus". There was a declaration of a "Consensus to move" by the person who closed the RM at 01:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC). I dislike being called "dishonest", and I suggest that you WP:assume good faith in the actions of others. I also don't think you should claim that you have the authority to declare what "will be kept" on Wikipedia on your own authority.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

—BarrelProof (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I'll try to be better about all of this as you suggest so that disputes like this don't happen again. Velayinosu (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look what you're doing is disruptive. You're continually redirecting long established articles without going through WP:MERGE or WP:AFD. Can't you see what you're doing is disruptive if you can't go through appropriate channels? Process is important, and youre ignoring it completely. I'm referring to [3] and [4]. Jules (Mrjulesd) 07:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I just reverted an attempt to move (ie. rename) an article by cutting and pasting its contents over a different article. That is wrong in so many ways, as you should be aware. First, if you want to eradicate the entire content of an article you really need some sort of discussion first. WP:BRD suggests that you can just do it boldly, but should be prepared to have it reversed and not do it again until it has been discussed (to show good form, let someone else do it after the discussion is complete). Secondly, never paste the content of one article into a different title. This makes it appear that you have written the article yourself from scratch and loses the entire history of edits by other authors (not to mention the talk history usually gets mangled as well). There is a mechanism for moving a page, its history, and its talk. This can be done by most editors in simple cases. In more complex situations (eg. the destination page has content or history), an admin will need to make the move and this is normally done after discussion (see WP:RM). Lastly, don't WP:EDITWAR. If someone objects to one of your edits, discuss it. If a discussion does not result in consensus in favour of your version, don't just do it anyway, and don't repeatedly revert other user's edits in an attempt to bludgeon your way to success. Lithopsian (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see this AfD following on from the RfC you commented on. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Virus Barnstar
		For significantly rewriting the Flu article to be of much higher quality. Your contributions have made it far more likely for the article to be kept as an FA. X-Editor (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar. Hopefully the article keeps its FA status. Velayinosu (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how well of a job you’ve done at improving the influenza article, I would also suggest taking a look at the seasonal flu article and making some major improvements there too. X-Editor (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about improving some other flu articles that are in poor condition, so I'll look into this one. Velayinosu (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Velayinosu, please provide references to justify changes such as this edit, this, this, and this. The citation provided is just a generic link to ICTV's taxonomy page, which doesn't even mention Poleroviruses, or Enamoviruses, or Comovirinae, or the carrot red leaf virus so I have no idea how to verify any of this. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The information is included in that source. The + to the left of a taxon opens the taxa immediately below it. You can follow a taxon's classification down the ranks to find it or you can use the search feature. E.g. for Solemoviridae, where it says "+ Family: Solemoviridae...", click the + and it will show the family's genera. Do the same for any genus to show that genus's species. Or search "polerovirus" or anything in the search box and press enter/Search. Clicking "View" to the left of one of the taxa it shows will take you to where the taxon is in the table. Velayinosu (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I strongly apologise to bother you, but if you do not mind, I would like to ask a question regarding the article Archaeal virus. It mentions TKV4-like proviruses, and I wonder what they are: viruses or perhaps endogenous viral elements? According to Wikipedia, EVEs have been found in animals, plants and fungi, but are there prokaryotic ones, too? Thanks a lot! Kind regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether TKV4-like proviruses are EVEs but according to the ICTV's definition of "virus",[5] they would likely be considered viruses. Velayinosu (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. Yes, I think you are right. TKV4-like elements have been described as viruses (see e.g.: Archaeal proviruses TKV4 and MVV extend the PRD1-adenovirus lineage to the phylum Euryarchaeota). PS. After checking ref 4 you provided, I suggest replacing the phrase Some life forms with Some genetic elements or something like that. What do you think? :-) Regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Update: In the scientific literature, they have been clearly described as viruses (see e.g.: How hyperthermophiles adapt to change their lives, and Microbial Evolution under Extreme Conditions). PS. The article is really well written, congratulations! --Pinoczet (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]