User talk:Jako96

To your recent edits on prokaryotic taxonomy, not respecting the NPOV policy:

I do not consider favorable to give priority only to formal correctness over substantive content in encyclopedic articles. The LPSN approach has its justification in the Prokaryotic Code, but it often obscures the true nature of archaeal kingdoms and phyla. Just because the official publication of kingdom names does not mention some phyla, it does not mean that they do not actually belong to the individual clade taxonomically represented by a kingdom. Examples for the clade (recovered in the recent phylogenetic analyses) represented by the formal kingdom Promethearchaeati:

• LPSN:
  • "not assigned to kingdom" pro-correct phyla Ca. Freyrarchaeota, Ca. Hodarchaeota, Ca. Kariarchaeota, Ca. Sigynarchaeota
  • pro-correct phyla Ca. Gerdarchaeota, Ca. Helarchaeota, Ca. Thorarchaeota neither "not assigned to kingdom" nor child taxa of Promethearchaeati nor as child classes of phylum Promethearchaeota similar to Ca. Sifarchaeota/Ca. Sifarcheia
• Compare with NCBI (including also plenty of other not pro-correct names):

In accordance with the NPOV rule, other approaches (NCBI, Bergey's Manual, GTDB) should also be respected (or at least mentioned). The existence of a competing nomenclature code for prokaryotes, SeqCode, should be also taken into consideration, which has its own factual justification () and strong support in the microbiological community ().

Personally, I consider NCBI, for example, to be more suitable for the encyclopedic approach describing the essence of a given entry in higher taxa of the domain Archaea. However, even if the preference for LPSN remains in the Wikipedia "prokaryotic" articles, different approaches should definitely be at least mentioned and Wikipedia should not pretend that, due to the formal invalidity of the name, for example, the clade Heimdallarcheia (preferred, not pro-correct name of Ca. Heimdallarcheia), probably the closest known relative of eukaryotes (or their mother cells before the endosymbiosis of protomitochondria/hybridisation with proteobacterium) does not exist (I am deliberately referring to one of your recent edits).

By the way, I consider the situation with "valid" bacterial kingdoms based on the phylogenetic idea from 2021 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.abe0511) could be even more dangerous, because their "clades" are not recovered in several more recent GTDB genomic analyses (versions 08-RS214/2023; 09-RS220/2024) and the phyla of "valid" kingdoms are mixed up in the phylogenetic tree according to them. The formal taxonomy could be correct but in fact misleading (not only for the Wikipedia users).

Please, do not consider my contribution as a defense of "outdated" approaches to the nomenclature and classification of prokaryotes (although there may be many colleagues, especially from fields of research that view prokaryotes only as the cause of various diseases, who have different points of view for their approaches to classification and it is often useful for them to preserve the old names). I prefer a modern approach, but one that focuses on the essence, not on the formalities, and respects the NPOV Wikipedia policy.

So, please, don't hurry and think twice before the groundbreaking edits based only on one POV, they may not always be beneficial for Wikipedia. Petr Karel (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it doesn't respect the NPOV policy. This is the formal classification that is used today. And I didn't "hurry". The taxonomy of prokaryotes was so bad, it was even in contrast with itself. And NCBI taxonomy says it is not so correct to cite their taxonomy (I don't remember where they said that). So, I didn't "hurry". I just fixed the taxonomy. But, yeah. Other "old" views should be added, definitely. Jako96 (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The views of GTDB or SeqCode are not old (LPSN approach is older :-)). The taxon names applied by them (and also plenty of texts by scientists who prefer their approaches) seems to be similar but have another meaning/contents. Wikipedia reader should know about it. Compare Thermoplasmatota or Halobacteriota in LPSN and in GTDB (or NCBI) – for LPSN the original meanings were made broader (synonymized with Methanobacteriota to be formally consistent with the phylum level), in GTDB or NCBI Thermoplasmatota, Halobacteriota and Methanobacteriota are completely different clades! That is why I am not happy about preferring the LPSN approach in encyclopedia. Taxonomy should be the tool to represent phylogeny (it cannot rule the phylogenetic reality) and wikipedia should at first present the reality and then mention the formalities. --Petr Karel (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I do think twice when doing these things. But only in the start I had to do bigger edits because prokaryote taxonomy was so messed up in the wiki it was even in contrast with itself. By the way, do you support the two-empire system? Jako96 (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The two-empire system is better in case the mainstream hypothesis of eukarytes origin is valid, i.e. endosymbiosis of a bacteria (to be a proto-mitochondrion) by an Asgard-archaean ancestor (= continuing this archaeon evolution line). There are other theories, sometimes very obscure. Considering a "hybridization" event at the beginning (eukaryotes start as an inter-domain hybrid), archaea are a "natural" taxon and the three-domain system is O.K. The three-domain system is also O.K. if paraphyletic taxons are allowed in the system (in any case of the eukarytes origin). So, for me both approaches are acceptable if their application is sufficiently commented (encyclopedical and pedagogical reasons may compete with the strong phylogenetical reasons). I am less interested in formal systematic presentation, more in the real mechanisms of eukaryotes origin (let me mention for instance this new discovery) – and to be frank, I like the endosymbiosis theory more. --Petr Karel (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for making a report about Smartiejl (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report them. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I wanted to use the Template:Uw-unsourced4 but I accidentally used Template:Uw-vandalism4im. It would be more appropriate if I used Template:Uw-unsourced4. Jako96 (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

You shouldn't be using those templates except in the most obvious instances. This isn't one of them. Instead of using a template which doesn't allow you to give much nuance you need to try and start a collegial discussion about the editing you don't like. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, he didn't response to ANY of his warnings. So I just used templates. And a lot of people that warned him used templates. But okay, I will generally start a discussion once I see someone do something like that. Jako96 (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Btw what you meant by saying "recent final warning"? So he does it again, gets warned and then does it again and then I report him? Or you meant the last warning that I sent to him? Jako96 (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts (but never when editing articles). There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I always sign them! Because I was adding a template, these warnings were not signed automatically so I forgot. Jako96 (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How to upload a file with CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license? Wikimedia Commons won't allow this license. Jako96 (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:FFU - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Jako96 (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I noticed your recent "updated reference" edits. The reference you're updating is a journal article about LPSN. It is not LPSN itself, and the journal article doesn't support the claims about subdivisions that LPSN would support if it were actually cited. Plantdrew (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

See "How to cite LPSN" https://lpsn.dsmz.de/ Jako96 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

That is just bizarre. Catalogue of Life doesn't cite LPSN like that. See https://lpsn.dsmz.de/text/copyright. I guess 1a on the copyright pages offers some explanation about why they want to be cited like that, and 1b directly contradicts that. Taken together, I think they the are saying "if you think LPSN is a valuable resource and you mention it in a scientific publication, give us good citation metrics for this 2020 paper", and "if you repeat any taxonomic information from LPSN, cite the LPSN page for that taxon". Plantdrew (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we should cite both, I think. Jako96 (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I recently discovered {{Lpsn}} which gives both the journal article and the LPSN page for the taxon. And it's generally better to use reference wrapper templates when they exist rather than generic citation templates. With a wrapper template there is a potential to update all of the links if a URL gets changed (the Lpsn template originally linked to bacterio.net but now links to lpsn.dsmz.de). Plantdrew (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Wow! I think we should use that too. Well thanks for making me learn that. Jako96 (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 and Plantdrew: There’s nothing bizarre about this. The how to cite thing is intended for papers where there are automated tools counting paper-to-paper citations. It is the same as when other computer tools and databases tell you to cite their paper: they want their h index, citation counts, whatever. The only issue is that Wikipedia is (mostly) NOT counted towards these things and our needs for landing at the right page (like how you would cite a chapter or page number instead of the forewords) take precedence. Copyright DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU to follow the how-to-cite instructions from the author word by word. —Artoria2e5 🌉 05:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The point of including references in a taxonomy template is to have a source that supports the other template parameters, especially |parent=.

I don't know why you included a reference to LPSN in {{Taxonomy/Fermentibacterota}}, when you gave the parent as Pseudomonadati. LPSN has Fermentibacterota unassigned to a kingdom.

And if you're changing any of the parameters in a taxonomy template that has a reference, you should change the reference to something that supports the changes you made (or at least remove the existing reference). {{Taxonomy/Chaetocerotaceae}} cites WoRMS, but you changed the parent, and WoRMS doesn't give the parent as Chaetocerotophycidae (WoRMS treats Chaetocerotophycidae as a synonym of Chaetocerotanae).

I don't think Adl's diatom classification is any improvement over WoRMS. Both Adl and WoRMS are a mess to some degree. But in Adl's table 1, Diatomea is suggested to be a class, but in table 2 it is given subdivisions with suffixes that traditionally indicate subphyla, classes and subclasses. Adl doesn't generally indicate families or orders for diatoms, and only lists a few example genera in the subclasses. WoRMS is at least consistent in treating diatoms as a class, and is usable for assigning genera to families. Plantdrew (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I gave the parent as Pseudomonadati because before it was FCB group. And FCB group already had the parent Pseudomonadati. I didn't check the citation there. When it comes to the second, yes I shouldn't have done that. Jako96 (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I have added a title to my question at WT:TREE, consequently your comment migrated to the WT:TREE #How about reducing greatgreat?, too. --CiaPan (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Jako96 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

(@ your recent edit of Eukaryote) Please, be careful with assigning the clade names applied in phylogenetic analyses to the LPSN taxons with valid publication, it is usually your "original research" and could be in conflict with the real content of the clade. The "same" name can be substantially different in the content. (Compare the LPSN names with GTDB or SeqCode Registry.)

BTW, an Editor’s Note has been added to the referred article supporting the Hodarchaeales as sister to Eukaryota: Readers are alerted that technical issues with the phylogenomic analysis using the NM57 dataset (Figure 2 and any related and downstream analyses) in this paper are being evaluated. Appropriate editorial action will be taken once this matter is resolved. Petr Karel (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

My which edit? The last one? And this is no WP:OR, lmao. Jako96 (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

This edit (Eukaryotes emerged sister to "Candidatus Hodarchaeota + ref) applies the LPSN name Candidatus Hodarchaeota to the clade named Hodarchaeales in the study, which is part of Heimdallarchaeia. Petr Karel (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know that. By the way, you really should use the word "taxa" instead of "taxons". You do this a lot. Jako96 (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

GTDB and SeqCode Registry do not use "Ca. Hodarchaeales", btw. Not even "Ca. Hodarchaeota". Jako96 (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, because Hodarchaeota it is not a clade, so not a natural taxon. Hodarchaeales is included in GTDB as o_Hodarchaeales and in the Release 10-RS226 it is a clade. (LPSN cares about validity of publication, not about "validity" of the definition considering newer analyses. Ca. Hodarchaeia and Ca. Hodarchaeota have valid publication but as a parent for Ca. Hodarchaeales are in conflict with Heimdallarchaeia, see the note in ) Petr Karel (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jako96. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I will answer the questions when I have time. Jako96 (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Gymnophthalmoidea. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because It has no content. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Polyamorph (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, it was supposed to be a redirect, but I forgot to redirect it. Jako96 (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I moved it back to mainspace, and redirected it to Lacertoidea. Jako96 (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed a recent flurry of activity on the taxobox of the Acanthodii page, with somewhat questionable results. You have previously voiced support for removal of Teleostomi from the automated taxobox system, which is reasonable given its apparent redundancy, but I also noticed you removing Chondrichthyes from the "traditionally excluded" section and replacing it with Osteichthyes (and at one point Teleostomi itself, despite that group often being used as Acanthodii + Osteichthyes). Is this an error, or is there a legitimate reason you want the acanthodian page reverted to displaying Osteichthyes as a descendant taxon against growing modern consensus? Gasmasque (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I did that because I couldn't get a consensus for removing Teleostomi. So I thought for now, we'd support Teleostomi in articles. Jako96 (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Now I started a discussion. See. Jako96 (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what you did with Endohelea. Endohelea is not a monotypic taxon, so it should not be merged with Tetrahelia. If you consider Endohelea not notable enough, you should have merged it with Cryptista and/or Corbihelia, not with one of the two taxa that are assigned to Endohelea in the scientific literature. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

If Microhelida is excluded from Endohelea, it becomes monotypic. First I changed Axomonadida's parent to Cryptista but you reverted me, so I merged Endohelea with Tetrahelia. Jako96 (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The issue is, Microhelida has not been excluded from Endohelea, because nobody from the CAM clade paper actually mentions Endohelea. They made no taxonomic actions regarding the formal classification of Microheliella in any family, order or class. There is no basis to say that Tetrahelia isn't still related to Microheliella, because nobody has the genetic data to either confirm or deny it. If Cavalier-Smith was still alive (or if his coauthors worked on this), he might have emended Cryptista as a synonym of Pancryptista, and his classification would have still made sense. It's a complicated situation, but basically we as editors cannot assume further than the preexisting literature, which is that Microhelida is not (yet) recognized as being in a monotypic Endohelea.

That's why the better decision is to simply merge Endohelea and Corbihelia to Cryptista (if any merge is done at all), preferably with a section explaining the situation. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I think we should just change Axomonadida's parent to Cryptista and that's it. What do you think? Jako96 (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Trust me I wish we could just do that, but that would be WP:OR I feel. I think it's best if we leave it as it was until someone actually publishes a coherent thing about Tetrahelia. — Snoteleks (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Using a monotypic Endohelea is kinda okay now, see Harada et al., 2024. They both mention Microhelida, CAM and Pancryptista. I think that kind of means that Microhelida is out of Cryptista now, and Endohelea can be accepted as monotypic. Jako96 (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, an article about diatoms said something like "Adl et al. pulled X genus out of Y and placed it in Z." This is a similar case. If Microheliella has been "pulled out of" Endohelea, it becomes monotypic. I can't find that article now, by the way. Jako96 (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

To your edit, as a comment to your speculation about OR in the edit by User:Videsh Ramsahai:

The clade Proteoarchaeota and the "LPSN kingdom Proteoarchaeota" have diferent meaning.

• Proteoarchaeota were introduced as a superphylum comprising the known (2014) TACK and DPANN lineages, i.e. "all but Euryarchaeota", in today's POV paraphyletic. Later, the DPANN was correctlz left out.
• The name was then applied for a clade comprising the TACK with the archaeal lineages near to Eukaryota (that times only Lokiarchaeota were known from the Asgard clade) - e.g. . The name is no OR, it could be considered as still valid for a clade being monophyletic (on the contrary to probably paraphyletic kingdom Thermoproteati, comprising the clades Thermoproteota as sister to Asgardarchaeota/Promethearchaeati, and Korarchaeota basal to both of them) - see the GTDb (handling with clades but named similar to taxa, many times with different meaning/contents).
• Taxomomists (LPSN) following the Prokaryotic Code had no possibility to place Proteoarchaeota "between" the kingdom Thermoproteati and the phyla Thermoproteota and Promethearchaeota, so they had to transform/upgrade Proteoarchaeota to a kingdom and synonymize it with Thermoproteati.

The description in the cladogram was correct. (It was not the case for the paraphyletic Neoeuryarchaeota.)

I feel it is a pity that the clade Proteoarchaeota has been deleted from the wikipedia (and again, that the formal LPSN has priority in wikipedia and your edits, not the phylogenetical approach to the Archaea classification). Petr Karel (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The cited sources didn't include such a "Proteoarchaeota". Not my fault. Jako96 (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, the "Proteoarchaeota" that includes Promethearchaeati and Thermoproteati is WP:OR. The source you showed only includes "Ca. Lokiarchaeota" from the Asgard group. Stop disturbing me for such nonsense, please. Jako96 (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

What else would you expect in a 2015 ref? (And it was not "Ca." that time. But I understand, you accept only LPSN taxa, it is your POV, O.K. Further discussion has no sense.) Petr Karel (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not it. The source you showed only includes "Ca. Lokiarchaeota" from the Asgard group. This is clearly WP:OR. The source doesn't even use "Proteoarchaeota" for Thermoproteati+Promethearchaeati. Ask other WP:TOL editors, and they will give you the same answer. Jako96 (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! Re this revert on Bacteria: I feel I found solid evidence that that genus was credibly placed into a proper phylogeny, but I can accept that it is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to exclude only that genus. Though, I find it valid to exclude all names that are labelled as Not validly published by the LPSN.

Perhaps the more pressing issue is that this list and section link above should not be included in the infobox per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, as it isn't discussed in the body of the article and section links are to be avoided in infoboxes. It is best to move the list to a section further into the article where the topic can be contextualized, perhaps near the Phyla section or as a subsection of Classification and Identification.

Also, it is surprisingly hard to find any secondary sources on unassigned bacterial genera/families/etc. It seems like most unassigned bacteria are labelled as such using primary references. ⇌ Synpath 19:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I think we should not exclude all invalid names because a lot of prokaryotic taxa are formally invalid, but still important. But you're right, we should mention such genera and species in the body of the article. Jako96 (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

While edit summaries are obviously encouraged, they're not mandatory and an editor not using them isn't an actionable infraction. If there's an issue with the content of their edits, then you could certainly take that to ANI, but not using edit summaries is just an inconvenience, not a crime. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for answering. Jako96 (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Jako96, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Angistorhinopsis, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. CoconutOctopus talk 11:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello Jako96. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Scincidae, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Potentially controversial move away from WP:COMMONNAME; please start a requested move or split discussion. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I restored Template:Taxonomy/Chaetocerotanae which you had blanked because it is used by the taxobox at Leptocylindrus. I can only repeat yet again: don't blank taxonomy templates that are in use. Always check "what links here". WoRMS accepts Chaetocerotanae as is referenced in the template. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Jts' template didn't show me that, I swear. Jako96 (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

It's best to use "what links here" in the side bar (in desk top view), in my experience. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll double check next time. Jako96 (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll use both Jts' template and what links here. Jako96 (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Wait, this was a script, not a template. Why would I say template? Idk Jako96 (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Please do not respond to an edit by aggressively posting three different warning templates in quick succession in a new topic on a user talk page, especially to say to provide a source for the absence of claims (???) when the edit summary gives the necessary information. Please be civil. Thank you. Mlvluu (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

These warnings were fair. You didn't cite a source for your edit on Pywackia, and also marked it as a minor edit when it was not. Also, you changed Template:Taxonomy/Myllokunmingiida's parent from Agnatha to Vertebrata, stating that "Agnatha is nonsense". You can't just change information because you want to. Please stop your disruptive behaviour, or you are likely to be blocked again. Jako96 (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I asked you about your edit on Template:Taxonomy/Myllokunmingiida, but you didn't answer me, so I gave you a warning. Can you explain why would you make such an edit? What does "Agnatha is nonsense" mean? Just because you dislike non-monophyletic taxa we can't remove them from the wiki. Also, you changed only one template's parent. Jako96 (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Mlvluu: to support Jako96, what matters is sources. The van der Laan (2018) reference used at Myllokunmingiidae explicitly says: "The concept 'Fishes' is used in the usual, non-monophyletic sense ..., i.e., starting with Agnatha and including all non-tetrapods." So it can be used to support the concept 'Agnatha'. However, it actually goes on to place Myllokunmingiida in Subphylum Craniata, not Infraphylum Vertebrata, so Craniata could be a better parent, but other sources synonymize Vertebrata and Craniata, as our article does, so it's tricky. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, where was I going to cite a source for the absence of claims? That makes no sense and is completely impossible. I'm fairly sure that's the lead anyway and shouldn't even contain sources. Also, why are you bringing up the Myllokunmingiidae edit here? Mlvluu (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Mlvluu: I'm not bringing up any edits at Myllokunmingiidae, just using one of its sources to try to decide what the parent of Myllokunmingiida should be at Template:Taxonomy/Myllokunmingiida – although they are often not, parents in taxonomy templates should be supported by a ref. Van der Laan (2018) would support Craniata, or at a stretch, Agnatha. What source supports Vertebrata which you changed it to? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

That was, uh, directed at the one who brought it up, not at you. Mlvluu (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

You have a point. You removed cited info from Pywackia, but did not add any info. Still, you should not remove such cited info that contradicts with another source that is uncited. And, if the info in the lead is not presented anywhere in the article body, then the lead SHOULD have references. Also, I'm bringing up that edit here because I gave you the disruptive editing warning because of that. Jako96 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I was wondering if you have any information on the ediacaran enigma lomosovis. YameenØriøn (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea what that is. Jako96 (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Now I did some research. Apparently, Lomosovis is an Ediacaran genus that contains the sole species Lomosovis malus. Nesterovsky, Martyshyn and Chupryna (2018) says that Lomosovis is dendritic, attached to the biomat substrate, and it's authority is Fedonkin, 1983. Ivantsov et al. (2015) used the following diagnosis on Lomosovis: "Large, dendritic, colonial organisms. The basal part is a high, relatively broad obconical stem with a small discoid basal attachment. Relatively ine, tubular processes detach from the upper part of the stem and end in a crown of ine, long setae. Such processes can also diverge from the lateral sides of the basal stem; they often display a dichotomous branching. The surface of the organism is lat." They also used this description on Lomosovis malus: "The upper part of the basal stem bears two semicircular processes, either continuing as long, tubular growths or as shorter brush-like terminations. Below, the stem has two or three processes of different length. These processes are commonly rather thick proximally; they then became narrow, and in places of branching, became slightly thicker. The surface of the processes and basal stem are usually smooth, though the processes are covered by ine and long mainly longitudinal wrinkles. The basal stem in one case bears distinct transverse wrinkles: ine almost straight double grooves, cutting the stem from one edge to another. Judging by the thin occasional wrinkles, curvatures, traces of twisting and contortion, the processes, as well as the basal stem seem to be rather soft and lexible. The ends of the processes and offshoots are commonly brush-like" They also state that Lomosovis malus' authority is Fedonkin, 1983. Martyshyn (2022) provides a fossil image. Jako96 (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.

Btw I was wondering how you got so many edits despite only logging on last year.Do you work all day? YameenØriøn (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, I work all day, lol. Also, my first account was created in 6 November 2023, which I abandoned (of course that account's edits do not effect this account). Jako96 (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

K,now I know:) YameenØriøn (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious about one thing: Why would you ask me about Lomosovis? You could just do the research yourself, it's not that hard. I probably have all the information to create a solid stub article now. Jako96 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I used Google Scholar when researching this, which you could also. Jako96 (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I went through 6 articles on scholar but there wasn't any info on it.Im prolly gonna make the stub which may be the first page I created fully. YameenØriøn (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay. As you're a new editor, I won't create the page, you can create it. By the way, do you need any help with creating the page? I can help you with that! Jako96 (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Glad to hear that, I will ask for help if needed. :) YameenØriøn (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Why would you cite the Fedonkin paper? You should've cited the papers I provided to you. You didn't have access to the Fedonkin paper but still cited it, right? Jako96 (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm %100 sure of that because it's not available online. Jako96 (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

In the page it said that to be an Eumetazoan you need true tissue cells that are organised into germ layers but palcozoa dosent have true tissue (they are still diploblast which means 2 germ layers) so how does palcozoa count as an Eumetazoan Abrham1111111111111111 (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, you did not cite reliable sources for your claims. That's why you were reverted and warned. Jako96 (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

https://dunnlab.org/assets/Dunn_etal2015_hidden_biology.pdf does this count as an reliable source like its hard to tell the difference i will show you more later Abrham1111111111111111 (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely. But the problem is, the source doesn't even mention Eumetazoa. Jako96 (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

wait a minute im checking the sources that are mentioned Abrham1111111111111111 (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion upon your request, but feel free to re-open if that becomes necessary at some point. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I will re-open if necessary, thank you. Jako96 (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked the account, but please be aware that making a report to WP:AIV regarding an account that hasn't edited in a week is usually a non-starter. I know you started a thread about this editor previously at WP:AN/I and it went nowhere. The best course of action would have been to re-report to WP:AN/I if the editor returned to being active and continued the problematic behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking him and informing me about that. Jako96 (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

You recently moved a few dozen pages from "Candidatus X" to "X". Please update the WP:DISPLAYTITLE when you do. It's right in the editnotice for Special:MovePage after the move is performed. Paradoctor (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for warning me, I apologize. Jako96 (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Please, that was just a friendly reminder. Not after blood or something. ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Template:Taxonomy/Cristomonadia is used in the taxobox at Holomastigotoides so you need to fix that hierarchy before blanking the template. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

In its article Parakaryon is shown as extinct. Is this correct? If so (pardon my ignorance) how did researchers reach that conclusion? Thanks in advance, --Middle 8 ^{Neurodivergence} • _(s)talk 20:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

No, i just found that it was some original research nonsense done by a new account. Reverted. Jako96 (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Also warned the user now. Jako96 (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Greetings. I find your edits to Wikipedia to be very informative. I respect your commitment to the mission to improve biological pages on Wikipedia. I am learning biology myself and the edits you have made have helped me and countless others stay ahead of the curve. Thank you and please continue the good work you do.

Malayalee from India (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This message has made my day! You're welcome. And, just out of curiosity, which edits of mine helped you? Just curious. Again, thanks for this post. Jako96 (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

The edits you made on protists were very informative to me. Please continue the good work you are doing as there is a lack of good scientific information on this platform and most are not updated for years.

Could I ask your counsel when a biological page needs fixing? Thank you in advance!

Malayalee from India (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Of course, anytime you want! By the way, a great part these edits were to taxonomy templates I think, right? And, trust me, I've bigger upcoming plans for protists. Also, if you think I deserve a barnstar, you can give me one. They are used for showing appreciation to someone. Jako96 (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Just awarded you. I know nobody else who deserves one. I'll be sure to contact you when the time comes and when I require of your assistance. Till then, Peace!

Malayalee from India (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but, I didn't receive any barnstar. You might want to see how to award one in Wikipedia:Barnstars. And, if you can't do it, it's okay to me anyway. Again, thanks! Jako96 (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Its on the talk page. Ill be sure to contact you when I would require your assistance

Malayalee from India (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

You should've sent it in a message, but no problem, that still counts. I removed it from there and will add this to my user page. Again, thank you, bye! Jako96 (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, at Template:Taxonomy/Gymnophthalmoidea the rank can't be set to superfamily and have the parent as a superfamily. I made a temporary fix to stop it being in the error-tracking category. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

It was just a mistake by Plantdrew, things can happen. Fixed. Jako96 (talk) 11:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not realize Template:Taxonomy/Lacertoidea had a superfamily as a child. I'm going to set Lacertoidea to clade, but the article should perhaps be moved to Laterata. The reference you added to the Lacertoidea taxonomy template is inappropriate. It calls Lacertoidea a order, not a suborder, and a paper about the diet of a bird is not a good source for the classification of reptiles (and it is apparently using "orders" very loosely; I assume what they call Scolopendromorpha is actually all centipedes, Spirostrepida is all millipedes, Lacertoidea is all lizards, and Eulipotyphla is perhaps only shrews).

And when I was Looking into this, I found that Wikipedia's Sauria article is a mess; we're treating it as a high level clade that includes all extant reptiles (including birds). That is apparently a real cladistic definition, but Sauria has been used as ranked taxon for lizards. iNaturalist treats Sauria as the scientific name for lizards and a suborder of squamates, ITIS has it as a suborder in synonymy with Squamata, and The Reptile Database has it below Lacertoidea (Reptile Database record for e.g. Meroles cuneirostris has parent taxa "Lacertidae, Eremiadinae, Sauria, Lacertoidea"; I'm not sure if Eremiadinae above Lacertidae is an error (Eremiadinae is presumably a subfamily), nor do I know what rank, if any, Lacertoidea has there). Sauria should probably be moved to Sauria (clade) with Sauria made into a disambiguation page for the high level clade and the ranked taxon for lizards. Plantdrew (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: I agree re Sauria. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, another rank inconsistency, at Template:Taxonomy/Haptophyta which you created. The parent Haptista had the rank of "phylum" which is the same rank as "division", so not possible. I set the rank at Template:Taxonomy/Haptista to "clade" for now. Do look out for this issue when you create or edit taxonomy templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

What? It was an unranked clade before, until Snoteleks just changed it. Please don't automatically blame me for things. Jako96 (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I now see the problem was created at the level above, not where it showed up in the error tracking category. Perhaps both levels should be flagged; at present only the lower one is when consecutive ranks are inconsistent. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, no problem. And, when I said "Please don't automatically blame me for things.", I wasn't talking about you, really. Jako96 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

You are conflating Nebulidea with Alveidea. These taxa are not the same. The circumscription for Ancoracystidae is entirely different from that for Nebulidae, as it only contains Ancoracysta; same with higher taxa. Nebulomonas was described later than Ancoracystidae and was never assigned to the old taxa. Please revert these changes. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The CS Alveidea is different from Nebulidea, but the source I cited, the IRMNG, uses an Ancoracystidae that includes both Ancoracysta and Nebulomonas (even if that was not the case, the Nebulidae is still a junior synonym, but I doubt if we would use it in such a case). According to ICZN, the first published name has priority, so Ancoracystidae (and higher monotypic taxa it belongs to) should be used as we are preferring formal names (Diphylleidae over Collodictyonidae, Sar over SAR). Both Nebulidae's and Ancoracystidae's type are same (Ancoracysta), so Nebulidae, as the latter published name, is a junior synonym. Jako96 (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

That is a good point. But do you know where in ICZN exactly it specifies that synonymy is according to type, and not circumscription? — Snoteleks (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

See "objective synonym" and "invalid name" in the glossary. Jako96 (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jako96 Wait, according to the Diphylleidae article this is not applicable to Diphylleidae, because it was the genus Collodictyon that was described earlier in 1865, not Diphylleia which was described in 1920. That's the reason why taxonomists use Collodictyonidae. — Snoteleks (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. Cavalier-Smith, 2022 was wrong. Jako96 (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

See here: "61.1.1. No matter how the boundaries of a taxonomic taxon may vary in the opinion of zoologists the valid name of such a taxon is determined [Art. 23.3] from the name-bearing type(s) considered to belong within those boundaries." Peter coxhead (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Wow, well that seems pretty solid. I stand corrected! — Snoteleks (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

NCBI Taxonomy Browser lists only Nebulidea, WoRMS only Alveidea. The wikipedia user should find both names (POV rule), however, I do not object to adding a note about the priority according to a ICZN rule. Petr Karel (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I've speedy closed the AfD and done the move, but I leave it to you to revise the page with the sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Jako96 (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

In your edit at Protist classification you claim that, in the Cavalier-Smith system, Retortamonadida is still polyphyletic. This is completely wrong, as in his system Retortamonadida only contains Retortamonas, and he excludes Chilomastix. The footnote prior to your changes explained everything. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Snoteleks Please check the phylogeny of the source I cited. You can see that Retortamonas is polyphyletic, therefore, the CS Retortamonadida is also polyphyletic. Jako96 (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Wow! Good catch, you are correct, that clarifies it. I apologize for the premature edit. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Snoteleks Thanks, no problem. Jako96 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jako96. Thank you for your work on Sarcodia. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

not mentioned in target page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Sarcodia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 7 § Sarcodia until a consensus is reached. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 17:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I am a bit lost with the Pirsonea situation. Why are you deleting it from the automated taxonomy system and erasing it as class from the Bigyromonad article, only recognizing the order Pirsoniales? — Snoteleks (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Snoteleks Because Cavalier-Smith assigned Pirsoniida to Pirsonea, not Pirsoniales to Pirsonea. Maybe we could cite IRMNG though? Jako96 (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Pirsoniales is Pirsoniida though. They're the same taxon. Also, they are a zoological taxon composed exclusively of protozoa. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Snoteleks I think using Pirsoniida under Pirsonea is a better option. Also, just curious, do you still think that Ancyromonadida should be in Planomonadea? Just asking, I don't agree with it. Jako96 (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I am willing to change my opinion on the Planomonadea situation, especially after the Alveidea situation. I have not actually looked into why Cav-Smith prefers Planomonadea. Once I look into it I will let you know. But I would prefer if we put Pirsonea back where it was, with Pirsoniida under it. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jako96 Would you be able to reinstate Pirsonea? — Snoteleks (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Rn, I can't access to a PC, so it's hard (my edits don't have a mobile edit tag cuz I'm using the desktop site). I'm also only "kind of" okay with it. If you support Pirsonea, I think you should add it yourself. Also, did you forget to send th PDF that I requested? Tbh I might be more comfortable with Pirsonea if you send it, because of ranks. Jako96 (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Please, see the figure. Several inner branches could be described inside Disparia on the line to Promethea. It may be quite probable because of the analyses of the environmental samples. Petr Karel (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, right. Yea, sorry for the revert. Jako96 (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, at Template:Taxonomy/Leptocylindrophytina, the rank can't be set to subdivision, because all division (=phylum) ranks are above all class ranks, and Leptocylindrophytina has Superclass:Khakista above it. I set it to clade as a temporary measure. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Which should be the remaining setup. Thanks. Jako96 (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

... are great, but I wonder where Prototaxites falls? Sister group to the prions perhaps...

Seriously, since I keep encountering your work as I surf biology articles:

		The Bio-star
		To Jako96 for outstanding work in the weird and wonderful realms of eukaryote taxonomy! Thank you for helping make Wikipedia awesome. -- Middle 8 Neurodivergence • (s)talk 22:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

cheers, Middle 8 ^{Neurodivergence} • _(s)talk 22:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, those are high quality phylogenies, based on my analyses... and thank you so much! I appreciate the barnstar. My work in Wikipedia kind of stopped because of several medical issues, I hope I can be back very soon. Jako96 (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Update: I found this on the Internet so it's definitely reliable. According to Cavalier-Smith (2026, in press):

* traditionally excluded: Ediacaran biota

--Middle 8 ^{Neurodivergence} • _(s)talk 09:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, that is a very consensual phylogeny you got there. I'll definitely add this to my userpage. Have a good night! Jako96 (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)