User talk:Peteruetz

Since the group "nformal working group of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. " might it be better to make an article for the larger Specialist Group, and list the other working groups also? DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's certainly an option. However, i don't have time to compile this information. I started this page after realizing that it's difficult to find information about it via Google. THe text is actually from the current head of the TTWG, PP van Dijk. Peteruetz (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I use it (whenever possible)! Peteruetz (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interactome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Networks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Not fixed because not unintended. There is no proper Network page to link to.Peteruetz (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for using VisualEditor! Having editors use it is the best way for the Wikimedia Foundation to develop it into the best tool it can be.

While we always welcome general feedback (please report any issues in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product or drop your feedback on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org), the developers are especially interested right now in feedback on the special character inserter. This new tool is used for inserting special characters (including symbols like ₥, IPA pronunciation symbols, mathematics symbols, and characters with diacritics). ...

Issues you might consider:

• How often do you normally use Wikipedia's character inserters? ...

The developers are open to any thoughts on how the special character inserter can best be developed, even if this requires significant changes. Please leave your views on the central feedback page, or, if you'd prefer, you can contact me directly on my talk page. ...

P.S. You might be interested in the current ideas about improving citations, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Theodoor Gerard van Lidth de Jeude, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Fevrret (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Successfully contested! No spam at all!. Peteruetz (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please send permission for release under a CC BY SA license to permissions-en@wikimedia.org per WP:CONSENT. LeadSongDog come howl! 01:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I copied a few factual statements from some papers; I am sure you refer to the genome data in various bacteria. Note that copyright is explicit in that you can copy factual statements for which there is not much freedom of paraphrasing. If I copy a sentence that says "The genome of X has Y bp and Z genes" these are simply facts. There is no creative act involved in saying this. Please let me know what exactly your concern is and we can figure out whether there is any copyright infringement. Thanks! Peteruetz (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

See the highlighted text in this report.LeadSongDog come howl! 02:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have reversed your undos and revised the text. There are still some overlaps with the original source but I am absolutely positive that this is not a copyright infringement, given that the text is purely factual. (I have read several books about copyright issues for other reasons so I am confident.) Let me know if you find any other issue. Cheers, Peteruetz (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: If you still have concerns, I do know the authors of the cited ("copied") paper personally (!), and I am happy to ask them for further permission, if necessary.Peteruetz (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, you reintroduced the copied text from the abstract, but I've fixed that now. Please be very careful about this, wp:COPYVIO is a very big deal here. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly. I did re-insert parts of the abstract, but I have modified the text further. As I said, it's almost all facts and facts are NOT covered by copyright, at least not in small chunks like this (it's a different story for large datasets as it may be a creative act to produce those). I am sure the current version is fine as far as wp:COPYVIO is concerned. Anyway, let me know to modify further before you delete anything. Thanks. Peteruetz (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The Reptile Database has some amazing photos, many donated by volunteers, but I'm not sure if any of them are licensed such that they could be used on Wikimedia Commons. If there is some systematic way of tagging them, they could be imported using the Open Media Importer (with credit, of course!). The database might also like to become a Wikidata Collaborator, and import data from Wikidata. HLHJ (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

At this point, the Reptile Database has permission to use the photos only for the database. I would need to email all the photographers for permission to transfer them to Wikimedia. Note that we also have many photos displayed from Flickr and a few other sites, IF the photographers have set their rights to allow this. Not sure if Wikimedia can pull in such photos. That may be a bit tricky legally.

Independently, I am very interested to collaborate with Wikidata. I tried to contact a few administrators about this earlier, e.g. to link each species in Wikipedia (or Wikispecies) to the Reptile Database and back (we have done the latter for the French Wikipedia as this seems to be the most complete one -- they have basically created stubs for all species using the Reptile Database; however, because it's only the French one, we haven't included links in the public Reptile Database site). Let me know how this can be done. Thanks! Peteruetz (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
The updating and expansion of the Essential genes page has been great to watch. I just thought I'd suggest avoiding phrases referring to the current time (e.g. "Although similar screens are under way for other species"). These sorts of phrases become dated really easily so it's usually better to mention the specific date. that way, in 5 years time, the sentence still makes sense! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 06:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I have changed it. Although, this sentence would have remained true for many years to come :) Peteruetz (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I've rolled back your edits to Atheism because they are too specific and US-centric for the article. I suggest looking at Irreligion in the United States instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you waited for a few minutes or hours before you overzealously revert all edits. I am not done yet. And there are plenty of Wikipedia articles and sections which are US or whatever centric. This is not a good argument for reversion. It also helps to be a bit more constructive instead of just deleting other user's text. Thanks! --Peteruetz (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not the way Wikipedia works. Your edits were inappropriate, so I removed them. If you wish to discuss the matter on Talk:Atheism, that's fine, but don't expect the thousands of Wikipedia editors to "wait a few minutes or hours" while you mess around. If you must, please continue this discussion on Talk:Atheism. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That may not be the way YOU work, but courtesty is always a good thing and being constructive is even better. The preferred way is to point out that a section may be too narrow and hence may be removed. It would be nice to be civilized, especially when it comes to atheism, instead of being religious and overzealous. But yes, next time I will add an "under construction" tag to my edits, hoping that you will look at such details. Thanks for understanding. Peteruetz (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your very good work on biochemistry articles.

Please note that en.WP renders protein–protein with an en dash, not a hyphen. You can find the en dash button below the edit-window. Tony (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note.

Note - sorry about that, I didn't substitute the template when I put this here before.

This template simply reminds users to follow WP:MEDRS. Please familiarize yourself with that guideline - it is important, for many reasons. I wrote an essay about this, WP:Why MEDRS? that you may find helpful. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Sigh.... yes, I know what a high-quality reliable source is, and Science (magazine) is certainly one of them. That's the one I have cited, and I happened to publish papers in Science myself. In fact, I have used the built-in citation tool but it DID NOT recognize the PMID from 1993. Finally, please READ the stuff you cite. That's more important than just randomly grabbing citations which DO NOT say what you believe they say. Not sure if you have any scientific training but that's the 101 of working in science! Peteruetz (talk)

I have removed the some of the content you added to the above article, as it appears to have been copied from http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/IAI.00564-16, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Diannna, I am sorry to tell you but you may not have understood copyright: NO, copyright does not mean that you cannot copy text verbatim, it means that you cannot steal CREATIVE works of others. If someone makes a factual statement: "an elaphant is an animal is in Africa..." you can copy that statement no matter how long it is, because it is not a creative act (in the sense of the copyright) to compose such statements. I am getting a bit tired to explain this to people but I have read 2 books about copyright before I started working on Wikipedia, so I am 100% sure that my copied and pasted text will NEVER EVER stand a problem with copyright. Best regards. Peteruetz (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for helping out on this article. Could you also add citations to the sources you used? Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Patience -- just give me a few minutes, ok? That's why I added the Hox example because I didn't have a good reference/figure for the globin genes. Please add one if you have one. Thanks. Peteruetz (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, just thought you might have forgotten. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Saul Roseman page, your edit caused a PMC error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on All tall people requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, fine to delete. This was just for a demo in a class. Sorry about the confusion. Peteruetz (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the redlink on Evolution. Do note MOS:PIPE on linking plurals and other derived names though. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

This edit is all conjecture, and the sources do not meet even low levels of WP:MEDASSESS. Wikipedia is not an essay or journal discussion, WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTJOURNAL, #6-7. --Zefr (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid don't even know what you are talking about. Please be specific. Are you referring to the sentence I added about longevity in C. elegans that is affected by it's microbiome? That is supported by a study published in Cell which I properly cited. BTW -- I also added a reference for the claim that Eunuchs live longer (which I found weird indeed). Somebody else had added a citation to a web page or something, so I looked up the original study (published in Current Biology) and added that. I haven't verified the details, so feel free to delete that. I just tried to supply a proper source. Thanks. Peteruetz (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

So, you say that a paper published in Cell is not a reliable source? With Cell being among the most respected scientific journals in the world? Please explain.Peteruetz (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

For this discussion about references and the above topic on Longevity, you seem to be conflating source quality. Because a paper is published in a respected basic science journal like Cell does not make it a good source for an encyclopedia. See WP:NOTJOURNAL, #6-7, and WP:MEDASSESS, pyramids. Your point would be better supported by a systematic review or meta-analysis of completed high-quality randomized controlled trials, which unfortunately do not exist. --Zefr (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The Cell paper described a new discovery that is of high interest to the general reader which I translated into an easily understandable statement, given that everybody has a microbiome. There is no systematic review, so I have to cite original research as is done in thousands of other Wikipedia articles. If you don't like that you would have to remove a large fraction of Wikipedia. If you think my statement was to technical, please rephrase it. If you demand "high-quality sources" please be reminded that original, peer-reviewed science is the best source that you can get -- unless there are meta-analyses. BTW -- please use specific criticism instead of pointing to wholesale guides such as WP:NOTJOURNAL, #6-7, and WP:MEDASSESS. Explain to me why my sentence reads like a "textbook" or "scientific article" which it doesn't. Peteruetz (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

This https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Rapamycin+rejuvenates+oral+health+in+aging+mice is also not a suitable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where this link you show is coming from, but I did use the citation tool and a DOI. NO REASON TO DELETE THE WHOLE SECTION. Patience would be appreciated. You can also point out the wrong references WITHOUT deleting a lot of text. That seems a bit overzealous and makes people frustrated, giving up editing WP altogether. Thanks. Peteruetz (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I have moved the text to the talk page. This is an extraordinary claim "treatments that slow down ageing may be potential treatments for gum disease"

A small mouse study simple does not support it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

Did you create the file Religion_economy.png on the page Economics of Religion? I looked at the source (Press release from Gallup International and Red C) and their graph was nigh-illegible; did you clean it up and recreate it for the page, or was it sourced from somewhere else? I appreciate not having to pore over the pixelated and clip art-laden graph in the press release, but I wish to use this in a research project and would like to cite the original authors of both the information and the image if possible.

Thanks!

Kharazni (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I recreated that from the figure in the RedC/Gallup report (p. 13), as cited in the figure legend. Because the original was so badly formatted, I decided to redo it. Sure, you can use the figure from Wikipedia and cite the original data. Peteruetz (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abronia. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

This was a very conscious and intentional edit. Peteruetz (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC) (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Greetings,

Visited your User page, I was pleased to know your supportive contributions to Superstition related topics.

Lately I had updated definition section of the article Superstition with more sources.

A more comprehensive and stable definition in the lead might be helpful in expansion other Superstition related article since users will be more clear about components of superstition and what all they can include in the articles.

Hence looking for help in having more comprehensive definition in the article lead.

• Requesting your visit and help in expanding article Draft:Irrational beliefs

Besides I have been supportive to articles pertaining to Superstitions in various religious societies One by one.

• Superstition in Muslim societies article ready and in main name space needs further time to time expansions.

• Draft:Superstitions in Sikh societies is almost ready needs copy edit support. As earlier said would be more happy if we have more comprehensive stable definition at the main article Superstition lead since availability sources for smaller religious groups is limited.

• Draft:Superstitions in Christian societies is in need of article expansion support.

• Talk:Superstition in India#Superstitions in Hindu societies Waiting for community inputs here.

• Superstitions in other Buddhist, Jain and other smaller religious societies too will need coverage.

I am also looking for article expansion support in other segment like Draft:Humor during the COVID-19 pandemic

Requesting and looking forward to your support in article expansions as per your interest in the topics and availability of time.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. This is tricky as we need verified empirical data, ideally in some peer-reviewed sources, instead of a ton of anecdotes, which are plenty. Will look into it sometime later ... Peteruetz (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Peteruetz! Your additions to Endogenous retrovirus have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Peteruetz. I am Diannaa and I am a Wikipedia administrator. I have reviewed DanCherek's work and agree with him that the text you added is in violation of our copyright policy, because almost all of it is copied from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11423012/, which is marked as Copyright © 2001 BioMed Central Ltd. Please a stop re-adding it or you risk being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia may have different copyright rules than international copyright law, but factual statements are not protected by law (I did my homework to know that for sure). Be that as it may, I am happy to modify these statements to make sure there is no conflict. However, in my case I copied 3 individual (non-contiguous) sentences, which I then modified and Derek still reverted them, which is outrageous (and he did that WHILE I was editing -- come on!). and NO, I DID NOT JUST RE-ADD them, I was modifying them, which is ABSOLUTELY NOT IN VIOLATION OF ANYTHING. Did Derek actually look at any of my modifications? I doubt it. If you guys think something is in violation, just let me (or others) know, or give me an ultimatum if you think that's necessary. Most editors are certainly willing to modify their text, but deleting or reverting a whole page is ludicrous. I made many other changes on this page to improve readability and content, and all those were gone too. Overzealous policemen like Derek frustrate and drive out a lot of eager editors. Peteruetz (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy, stricter in some ways than copyright law itself, because our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. You must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. The material that I removed was 99 words copied verbatim from a copyright journal article available on the Internet. This goes far beyond a "factual statement" and is indeed protected by copyright. It's also a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy.

When you open any page for editing, there's an edit notice at the topt at states "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." The patroller removing the copyright content is under no obligation to re-write violations of the copyright policy for you or allow you time to do so yourself. Everything you add to Wikipedia needs to comply with our copyright policy right from the start. — Diannaa (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Then you should remove those 99 words and not the 500 other words that I edited, which is the actual outrageous part. I don't really care about the 3 sentences. In addition, you should NOT remove text that is being edited, which is actually ridiculous. A bit more goodwill would be in place. Lastly, there is way more copyrighted stuff on Wikipedia nobody gives a shit about. Maybe focus on those heavy hitters first. Peteruetz (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Macroevolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fruit fly.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your depiction of the biosynthesis of pterin cofactor. If you have some time, it is worthwhile redrawing the image with new ChemDraw settings, especially the "margin width". Otherwise your P-O bonds are nearly impossible to see. P-O bonds are longer than C-C bonds also. But the main thing is that the drawing is helpful, so thanks. It is easy to upload a revised image by double clicking your image, and you will be sent to WikiMedia Commons. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I just dumped it onto this page as there wasn't anything. This will require some work, including the addition of other derivatives. I would also like to add some enzyme information, but not sure when I will get to it. Peteruetz (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Liberibacter, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Your edit to Sequence assembly has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Peteruetz,

Thank you for creating Cytonuclear discordance.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This looks like an emerging modern topic, and there are at least primary works using this term; it would be great to bring in some more sources to establish notability and develop the content.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Klbrain (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Klbrain: Ok, I have added a few more references, linked to and from other pages, and thus removed your template. I agree that more work is needed but this is really a widespread phenomenon, if not a widespread problem in phylogenetics, so I am confident that this will be expanded relatively quickly. Peteruetz (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Peteruetz. Thank you for your work on Population Balance. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for starting this page for a relatively small, but long-standing, advocacy NPO. Many of the citations are examples of their advocacy work, but there are sufficient references to demonstrate notability. It would be great to expand the history of the organization, as there's a big gap from 1993 to 2021.

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

Klbrain (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Population Balance, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Chauncey Green (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. What do I vandalize and in which way? I have added objective correct information, which has nothing to do with vandalism. Please explain ASAP. It sounds like you are messing with other people's edits without any reason. What's your agenda? Peteruetz (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

You can ignore that warning...just one of our long-term abusers found a new account. DMacks (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page Fenix. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:

• Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
• Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
• Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
  • Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
• Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
• Do not insert external links or references

Thank you. Donald Albury 17:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did: add another entry to disambiguate the meaning of "Fenix". But whatever..., if you feel a bit zealous about cleaning up ... Peteruetz (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

You added an external link to a disambiguation page, which the guideline at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#External links specifically says not to do. Donald Albury 23:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:PDB 4FQG.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Thanks for the reminder. I used the infobox to add the image, but I was not asked as in the Wikimedia upload tool. How do I add the source information? I don't see any option. Peteruetz (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I added a source link to that page, but it's still awkward. I have only added images through the upload tool so far, which is more cumbersome but easier and more transparent. Peteruetz (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Peter,

I think we should try and avoid adding too much detail to Wikipedia articles. Many of them are becoming bloated with trivial information, some of which is misleading and/or controversial.

Your edit could have simply stated that some recent pseudogenes are still transcribed even though they don't produce a functional protein and given a reference to the Arabidopsis chloroplast gene. Genome42 (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I shortened that paragraph a bit but that's all I can do. There is not much detail AT ALL. What's "bloated" about a paragraph that is exactly 4 sentences???? It just explains that there are transcribed pseudogenes that are clearly non-functional, a situation that is rejected by creationists. In fact, I just reviewed my first creationist manuscript which claims stuff like this, which is one of the reasons why I have added this paragraph.

What's misleading or controversial about this? Peteruetz (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I share your concern about the influence of creationists but this is mostly an American phenomenon and I'm not sure it should spill over into science articles on Wikipedia. I get that you want to use Wikipedia to refute the misinformation spread by creationists but I don't think that's appropriate. I say this as someone who has been fighting creationists on the internet for almost 40 years.

It's possible that you may even be helping their cause by drawing attention to their ridiculous claims and giving them the opportunity to point out that the "controversies" they raise are even discussed in science articles on Wikipedia.

The issue of bloating applies to ALL information that is extraneous. It's a problem but, as you note, it begins with just a few sentences being added then the problem grows and grows.

The idea that a non-functional DNA sequence could be transcribed should not be controversial. We should just treat it as a fact in a Wikipedia article. You make it controversial by indicating that some people may object to that fact, as in your opening sentence, and by feeling that it's necessary to add a new section to "explain" an obvious fact. Genome42 (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Larry, creationism is not mostly an American phenomenon. Even in European countries or in Canada 20% or more people are creationists -- it's not a fringe problem.

How can I help their cause if I don't even mention them? I just described some scientific finding that I personally find interesting and I think a lot of other people may find interesting too.

You haven't explained to me which information is extraneous. Yes, transcribed pseudogenes are not controversial among scientists but even within the scientific community it has been discussed extensively whether transcription is a hallmark of "function" (it isn't in most cases) -- you surely remember those unfortunate claims by ENCODE. So, it should be made explicitly clear that transcription does not indicate function, which is exactly what I pointed out in that section. This is necessary, because in the vast majority of cases nobody has tested if there is a function of a transcribed pseudogene, e.g. by deleting it -- that's the message and that's why it's worth (or actually important) mentioning it.

Obviously, it would be much better if someone deleted a thousand transcribed pseudogenes and showed that 99% of them have no phenotype or no function, but until then we have to be content with selected examples. That's unsatisfactory but it's the state of the art. Given that the section on pseudogene function on that page is ten times longer than the paragraph I added, I think it is important to stress that the vast majority of pseudogenes is indeed functionless. Peteruetz (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Your edit to Population genetics has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa -- not sure how much you know about copyright, but the information I used from that abstract is NOT copyrighted, because it is simply factual information. I can modify it a bit more, but no matter what, there is absolutely NO copyright protection for the information I posted. So, I will take the liberty to revert your deletion again. Peteruetz (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, actually I won't restore that information, because you simply deleted it without any reason. So, people will just lose access to it. And also the links to that page. Sorry, this is just overzealous, meaningless policing. Peteruetz (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Here's what I found when examining ypour addition. Your addition:

From the source document:

Overlapping prose is shown in bold. That's a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I do not see any creative work here that is protected by copyright. But if the narrow definition of Wikipedia wants to be overzealous, so be it and it will discourage another loyal Wikipedian from adding anything useful to Wikipedia. It would have helped to point out that problem, so I would have simply rewritten it. Peteruetz (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Schazjmd (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Peteruetz. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 15 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey and a happy 2026 ahead. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 14:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)