User talk:Hannes Röst

Are you here because you think that my bot HRoestBot made a mistake? Please read the FAQ first. Maybe your questions will be answered there already.

Wilkommen

Nice to see a helpful editor working on techie things in WE. Lots to do here and an opportunity to learn a lot of stuff from various folks.--Smokefoot 16:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindlar

I am trying to figure out the meaning of the collection of chemical formulas at Lindlar catalyst. It is very, very difficult to depict the nature of a heterogeneous catalyst, but the thing you posted is not a Lindlar catalyst but a set of ingredients. Possibly you might choose to recast these formulas into some sort of in-line equation that describes how the catalyst is prepared, but the collection of individual formulas are barely relevant to the nature of catalyst itself. The catalyst does not contain lead acetate, for example - it is derived from lead acetate (or other lead(II) sources). Just a suggestion. Best wishes,--Smokefoot 16:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I got the three compounds directly from Vollhardt, Organic Chemistry - a standard textbook as you might know. But actually I don't know any better way of picturing it and I don't know enough about the preparation technique that I could go any further and make a better picture (and I don't know how it would look like). Although the "+" indicates that these are individual substances mixed together. So would it be best do delete the picture again? Thanks, --hroest 18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jahangir tareen

Rather than blank a page or some such thing, use {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.goldenlemon.com/story.htm}} (substituting the appropriate URL) and let an administrator deal with it. Postcard Cathy 12:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ETH-Hoenggerberg-2008.jpg

For this image, you say it was made by you, but you give GurkanSengun as the author. What gives? Lupo 13:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded it from en.wikipedia to commons. GurkanSengun is the author. --hroest 13:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I needed to this so I could use the image in the german article. --hroest 13:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, description fixed. When transferring images, be careful to maintain attribution in unambiguous ways. If you upload an image and it says "I created this image", people will of course assume you did create the image... Lupo 14:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ETH

Hi, I have just seen on your de.wikipedia.org user page that you are an ETH student; well, it was easy to guess just looking at your edits. Please do not add captions such as "ETH Zürich, the most prestigious university in Switzerland" to articles in Wikipedia" — except if you have reliable sources to back this claim, but prestige is something quite hard to measure... Also, the changes you made to the lead of Education in Switzerland single out a couple of Swiss Universities, without explaining why they should be mentioned instead of the other ones. The lead is already quite long, so we should remove content rather that add more. Thanks ! Schutz (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schutz. I agree that I am not completely neutral concerning this point and I dont hide the fact that I am a student there. But there are several universities that need to be singled out - as already happened was the university of Basel because its the oldest. Then there is the University of Zurich which is the biggest and then there are the ETHZ and EPFL that rank very high in the international rankings (ETH is always top of Switzerland, therefore I called it the most prestigious, if you want to I can replace the adjective - do you have a suggestion? But I think being this good in the rankings does qualify for being the most prestigious one I think?). About the university of St. Gallen I am not sure but its one of the more prestigious ones too in the field of economics and business. Instead of removing content we might be able to write one sentence to each university, explaining what its strenghts are etc, seems to me the better solution. Greetings --hroest 19:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid "prestigious" at all cost, since it is impossible to measure (and hard to define). If a University ranks high in a ranking, then we can say so, but I would not extrapolate from there. Also, don't forget that there are many different rankings available (I wouldn't be as bold as you are when saying that ETH is always top of Switzerland), so it would be better to have a secondary source that summarises several of these rankings rather than point to one or two of them, which is bound to be POV. Also, as you imply, not all Universities are active in all fields (e.g. neither ETH nor St. Gallen offer medicine studies), and every University is bound to be the "best" in Switzerland in at least one field (a few examples of renowned universities off the top of my head: international relations in Geneva, forensic sciences in Lausanne, law in Fribourg, medicine in Bern, economics in St. Gallen, architecture in Ticino). I agree that there are few enough universities in Switzerland that they can all be mentioned here; it would be nice to explain their strengths, etc, but it is going to be a very hard task if you want to avoid POV and stick to sourced information ! All the best, Schutz (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right about the word "prestigious" but I do not have a substitute available that would express the same content. Feel free to propose one. You are right in that one ranking is not an adequate source, therefore I looked around and found some others that basically said the same thing (see list below). It is not our task here to criticize the rankings, but we can merely depict their results and reproduce their findings. I do not deny that many universities in Switzerland are good at what they do and have fields where they are leading in Switzerland but it seems obvious to me that ETH has the best international reputation , given the rankings. ETH was on top of all the national and international rankings I could find, the Shanghai ranking was just one example...here are some more:

Shanghai Ranking 2007 27th, first in Switzerland^[1]. Shanghai Ranking 2008 15th in Natural Sciences and Mathematics, first in Switzerland^[2]
Times Higher Education Supplement World University Rankings 2006 24th, first in Switzerland. In 2007 it placed 42nd, first in Switzerland. ^[3]
In the Newsweek Ranking The Top Global Universities it was ranked 21st, first in Switzerland. ^[4]
In the Webometrics_Ranking_of_World_Universities it placed 32nd and top in Switzerland.^[5]

Nucleosome

Good work. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello, thanks again for the comments. I think the nucleosome picture you put there is much better than the one that was there before. perhaps it would be nicer to show the same image from different perspectives, ie from the back (dyad), front, side and top? i don't know, its always a pain representing a 3D image in 2D. As for the section on nucleosome reconstitution, its not really relevant, but at least what's written is not wrong . Personally, i don't really think its bad having a long article with obscure bits of data as long as they are correct and the important stuff comes first...

Ging3rnut (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gene pages

You can alter the controls at the bottom, eg diff will stop it updating the summary text. We kept to genes since any other organisation would be impossible to extend to all the other gene articles, however having summary articles on functional complexes sounds useful. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MM graph

I took some real data (I think from MTHFR), fitted it to the MM equation, subtracted the residuals from the data and re-plotted and re-fitted. The values on the Y and X axes are indeed arbitrary - I didn't think it made much difference if it was 100, 200 300 or 1000, 2000 etc Tim Vickers (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Metal

Yes, it would have been nice if I'd included annotation and links - but I'm not very good with html. I was going to go back and insert links, and I had issues reverting back to my edits.

A quick Google would have verified my edits - you didn't need to remove them. The album I mentioned can even be found in Wikipedia - it's not exactly unknown stuff, just unknown to whoever wrote the article!

Please don't be so quick to remove my edits in future - I am a keen participant in updating music pages, and would like to see the Heavy Metal page become more accurate.

Thank you. MarkCertif1ed (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I did not revert your edit, it was User:Wiki libs who did. But I do think that you should provide sources, you could use the Help:Edit summary to provide a book or a website where you got the information. Otherwise it might be treated as unsourced information and thus deleted again. See also WP:NOR and WP:CITE to see what should and what should not appear in a Wikipedia article. You can start the article in your own userspace before you post it, thus having more time to add references. Greetings --hroest 00:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MCB

Hi there, welcome to the Wikiproject! If you have any questions, comments or suggestions please drop me a note on my talkpage, or post on one of the project's discussion pages. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Style conventions

Hello. Please notice this difference:

N-1

N − 1

In the second case (1) the digit 1 is not italicized; (2) a proper minus sign is used, not a hyphen; (3) spaces precede and follow the minus sign. The latter form is prescribed by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics). Also, please notice my other recent edits to Moran process. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks - I included the namegiver of the process. there is some trouble if the math environment is used in regular text so I choose to use italics instead but I am not happy with it either. greetings --hroest 11:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glyoxalate cycle

Yes, that's certainly my impression as well. I'll have a look. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

one example: Voet 2nd edition, p. 538 --hroest 20:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ki67 - which antibody?

Hi Hannes,

I was looking at your stunning pictures: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Mouse_NT_antibody_NF_Ki67.jpg

But I couldn't find any details on which antibodies were used for this immunofluorescence. Could you let me know?

Best, — J.S.^talk 14:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see your email. I will add this information to the caption. Greetings --hroest 16:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hannes Röst. You have new messages at Smartse's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cyclin D picture for Cellular Biochemistry II

Hi Hannes,

we found this picture at http://www.pdb.org/pdb/explore/images.do?structureId=2W96 and we would like to put it on our page. But we have problmes with the licensing tag. On this page: http://www.pdb.org/pdb/static.do?p=general_information/about_pdb/policies_references.html it says that everybody can use it for free. But how do we tag it on the wikipage?

Thanks for your help!

hi, you should use {{PD-release}} in the image file you upload. I did it for you; just do the same thing with your next image (if it also public domain). --hroest 09:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FGD1 and MSP articles

Hi. Thanks for your class's contributions to improving Wikipedia protein articles. Per your request, I have updated FGD1 (gene) and Major sperm protein articles. Please note that you don't need an administrator to do this, you can do it yourself.

Before updating the articles, I did some copyediting to both, especially to the citations. In the future, I strongly urge your students to use User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions). Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a full citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. This tool will save you a lot of work, cut down on errors, and insure that the citations are displayed in a consistent manor. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boghog, I am aware that I would not need to have admin-privileges to copy-paste text. I wanted to have a real move with a previous deletion of the old text, so that there are no copyright issues. I believe from a copyright point of view, the action with copy-paste is not very "clean". Thanks for your help --hroest 12:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I told the students to use the Templatefiller, but I will urge them more strongly next time. --hroest 12:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Viruses is back

Hello, We at WikiProject Viruses noticed that you used to be a participant of the project before the project went inactive. We would like to take this opportunity to invite you to become a participant of WikiProject Viruses again. We believe that viruses are an extremely important part of an encyclopedia, and that is why we need you! Our new project coordinator is Thomas888b (talk · contribs).
We hope you seriously consider our invitation. See you there. If you are interested in joining our crew again, please place a notice on Our Talkpage, or you will be removed from our participants list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Viruses at 21:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Why did this swap happen?

See this bot edit. Many of the DAB interwikis have been incorrectly changed from Slam to Slam (Suburban Studs album), and I'm not sure why. +mt 23:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the interwiki link to the italian wiki: http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slam&action=edit&oldid=35764159 -- so en:Slam (Suburban Studs album) points to it:Slam which in turn points to en:Slam and many others such as de:Slam causing the wrong IW link. See also the FAQ http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Yurik/Interwiki_Bot_FAQ - Greetings --hroest 11:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit von HRoestBot

Dieser edit denke ich passt so nicht ganz - da es sich bei der Weiterleitung auf "Artigo sobre evento futuro" (Artikel über die bevorstehende Veranstaltung) um eine temporäre Weiterleitung handelt --Langholz8 (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bot edit warring

Hi, I'd like to bring to your attention the history of this article. Three bots seem to be warring here. Could you try and explain what exactly is happening there? Thanks. Lynch 7 12:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Always Forever

Hello. This edit is an edit your bot performed concerning interwiki linking. Always Forever is an album, while it:Al cuor non si comanda is a TV film. Aside from the name similarities, these two are unrelated, so that's why I reverted the edit. Thank you, and have a nice day. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 22:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad bot edit

Quick heads-up: it:Donkey Kong (disambigua) was added by HRoestBot to Donkey Kong. It belonged to Donkey Kong (disambiguation). I've fixed the issue. Salvidrim! 00:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two times now. Salvidrim! 05:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the FAQ. If Interwiki links are set wrongly, all bots will behave that way. Please try to correct the IW links first because they are the root of the problem. Greetings --hroest 08:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will give it a read. And indeed, the bot did it again. :) Salvidrim! 17:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Virus Revival

You have previously shown an interest in Wikiproject Viruses by adding your name to our List of Participants. We are currently reviving the project, and would be grateful if you could indicate whether you are still interested in contributing or not on our Talk Page. You do not need to have expertise in virology to contribute to our project, as we welcome people with any degree of knowledge of the subject.
Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Viruses at 17:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hallo! The {{virusbox}} we use here is very different from a normal taxobox. It's part of the new {{automatic taxobox}} family. The way an automatic taxobox works is super-complex, but is calculates and displays the scientific classification so that all an editor has to do to add a taxobox is know the first parent taxon (for examples, Velociraptor). If you like, I can help you put this system together for the German Wikipedia; it exists on five wikis so far, and German isn't one of those five. I've even studied German myself for several years, so this would be the easiest translation I could do of this template. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how to override interwiki linking on a case-by-case basis?

Is there any way to flag an article here (English Wikipedia) so that your bot will not add an interwiki link from some given foreign-language edition?

The article "Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories" has been getting interwiki links (added by HRoestBot) from the French Wikipedia article "Théorie du complot sur la citoyenneté de Barack Obama". The French article is horridly incomplete and (IMO) completely inappropriate to be linked to from the English Wikipedia.

Someone removed the link from the English article, but HRoestBot added it back. I went to the French article and commented out the interwiki link there; HRoestBot didn't add the link back in enwiki, but EmausBot did. Then, I completely removed the link in the French article (and then in the English article), and presumably this will fix the problem unless someone at frwiki adds the link back (either not realizing the issue, or possibly not willing to agree that the link doesn't belong at enwiki).

If the interwiki link gets added back at frwiki — and if people over there refuse to remove it and leave it out — it seems to me that we need to have some accepted way to tell bots not to insert a corresponding interwiki link here at enwiki. I've also brought up this issue on the talk page for EmausBot, and presumably a common convention should be agreed and implemented in both bots (and in any other bots that maintain interwiki links). Comments? — Rich wales 05:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia invites everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, but one or more redirects you created, such as with 2012–13 Real Madrid C.F. season, have been considered disruptive and/or malicious, and have been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Bobby (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xboxandhalo2, there seems to be an interwiki bot mistake. Did you already read the FAQ ? Greetings --hroest 07:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I tried addressing the issue by removing incorrect interwiki links on the corresponding eswiki page, but was promptly reverted by another bot on that wiki, Zerobot or something. Bobby (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem goes deeper. The wikilinks need to correct in all languages. Thus, on the fr, hr and it wiki, the link to es is still set, it is only "missing" on the en-wiki. Thus the bot sets it also in the en-wiki. I thus corrected it in all those wikis and the spanish one. Here it was feasible since there were few wikis. Now it should be fine, since there is, on no wiki, a link left from the Real Madrid season 2012-2013 to the spanish article. If there are still bot problems, consider using {{nobots}}, see also here. However, this should only be done in extreme cases. Thanks --hroest 14:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hermann Muller

I'm trying to update the page of Paul Hermann Müller but I'm having a lot of difficulty finding sources in English. Is there any chance I can convince you to search for some sources in German and send them to me? This guy is a Nobel prize winner but his page is still a stub. Thank you! AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just had a look into the matter and collected some of the sources that I found:

Biographisches Dossier Paul Müller (1899-1965) von Lenzburg AG; Dr. chem.; Nobelpreis 1948. Link -- most likely original sources / original research thus not too useful
Zur Geschichte des Insektizids Dichlordiphenyltrichloräthan (DDT) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Leistung des Chemikers Paul Müller (1899 - 1965) Augustin, Frank, 1993 Link Link this is probably a doctoral dissertation and might be rather hard to get (it seems there is only one copy in all of Switzerland, here at the national archives).
Christian Simon: DDT – Kulturgeschichte einer chemischen Verbindung. Christoph Merian Verlag, Basel, 1999, ISBN 3-85616-114-7
H. Schück and others, Nobel: The Man and His Prizes (trans. 1951; 2d rev. ed. 1962) Link
Eduard Farber, Great Chemists (1961). Link
Gale Group. World of Anatomy and Physiology Link
also maybe this article from the Lancet: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10210021 might be helpful, see http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2805%2974426-3/fulltext The Lancet, Volume 353, Issue 9159, Page 1196, 3 April 1999. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)74426-3 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)74426-3 I have access to this article but its hardly worth it, it has only 259 words, barely a stub ... with erratum doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)77910-1
Also i foudn this obituary in Nature Link direct link

so there is one biographical dossier and there are two books about DDT which might contain some biographical information and there are collections that contain some biographical profiles of him. I think the most promising approach seems to be the World of Anatomy whose biographical article is online - Link. Then, one could try the other books by Schueck and the one by Eduard Farber -- these together seem to be sufficient to create a real article instead of just a stub.

If necessary, I seem to be able to get my hands on the book by Simon which I could order at my local library and check how much information is in there about him, but since the book is about DDT and not about him, I am not sure how much biographical detail there will be about him. The doctoral dissertation mentions him in the titel and might be the most thorough body of research but will be quite hard to get as these dissertations are not often reproduced in large numbers.

So what do you say, do you think the World of Anatomy and Physiology is enough to start with? So I am of course willing to dig a bit deeper and get the material for you if you like me to, would you be able to read German sources? Greetings --hroest 11:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is immensely helpful! Thank you for the information :) I'm working on the next draft of the page as we speak and hopefully I'll have time to post it some time this week. I'm finding that Google translate is doing a pretty good job of translating these articles, so I can understand most of what it says, but if I need a direct quote, I'll definitely let you know. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Rosetta Barnstar
	For your outstanding work translating sources and helping with the Paul Hermann Müller article. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Super Arbeit! --Stone (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if you want to use any of the material, just contact me... --hroest 22:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The real world makes my worke here very minimalistic. I pilled up a few thousand pdfs still to be used.--Stone (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is always more work than there is time :-) But step by step we are getting closer and there is no deadline so no rush ... --hroest 12:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata is live

Wikidata phase 1 is live on the English Wikipedia. Please don't add iw-links back to article once it's been removed. Thanks! -- KTC (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the pywikibot just added the english Wikipedia as a client of wikidata a few hours ago. I updated my bot to the latest version and it should behave correctly from now on. Greetings --hroest 08:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undid revision 538382758 by 203.78.9.149

Greetings from Singapore! I just wanted to find out your reason for undoing revision 538382758 by 203.78.9.149 on 160213. Thank you for your attention.

Hi, I think that according to Wikipedia:External_links a self-uploaded image on Google docs is not a suitable external link. It would be preferable if there were a link to a reputable site with an article about that specific topic (and preferably also contains a recipe). I dont think the current link is great either but maybe you can find something suitable. Examples are http://blogcritics.org/tastes/article/risotto-al-nero-di-seppia/ or http://italianfood.about.com/od/fishrisotti/r/blr0874.htm but also not ideal candidates. Greetings --hroest 10:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot on English Wikipedia

A proposal to de-authorize a group of idle interwiki bots on the English Wikipedia is currently in process. A bot account of yours has been included in the list. If you are no longer using this bot, no action is neccessary by you. Should you wish to revive your bot in the near future, please remove your bot from the list here: en:Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Bot_that_are_inactive_for_the_last_2-4_years_and_may_lose_bot_flag. Thank you for your contributions. For the en: Bot Approvals Group, en:user:Xaosflux 12:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zestern analysis

Hi Hannes,

I posted this reply on my talk page, but I'm not sure if you'll get a notice about that reply, so I am reposting here:

I felt similarly about the article (Zestern analysis), which is why I added the citation needed notations. I had to go back and look at it again to remind myself about the technique (as I'd never heard of it elsewhere before), and I'm surprised that it hasn't been updated since I added those tags in April. It could indeed be entirely fabricated, or an advertisement, as the single source would suggest. I didn't dig around on Google for more than a minute or two back in April before I tagged the article, and I can't hunt for sources at the moment, but I am familiar with most types of immunoassay (immunoblots, anyway) and I had never heard of the "Zestern analysis " until reading that wiki, and I vaguely remember it being called a "Zestern blot." May I ask how you came across the wikipedia page? I'm pretty sure I stumbled upon it while reading a news article of some kind, but since it was way back in April I don't remember for sure.

The page could certainly use another template at the top, and perhaps should even be submitted for deletion. Perhaps some attention by the deletion mods and some experts would get this article fixed - or deleted if that's what's warranted. Thanks for asking me about it. When I have some time later today I'll look into this a little more. Spiral5800 (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came across it while reading the article Western blot where it was prominently mentioned. I already figured that something was fishy and indeed, there is no mention in pubmed of the technique and also google scholar only knows the patent plus one "Review article" in the "WORLD JOURNAL OF PHARMACY AND PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES" which is on Beall's List. I suggest to opt for deletion. --hroest 20:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In light of what you've found, I definitely agree. You should add what you've said here to the Zestern analysis talk page, and go ahead and submit it. I'll add it to my watchlist. Thanks for cluing me in - and for your critical eye! Spiral5800 (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hannes Röst. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Hannes Röst. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mortuary Drape

Hello Hannes Röst,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Mortuary Drape for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 12:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Hannes Röst. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virus taxoboxes

Hi, I wonder if you could comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Viruses#Top level for virus taxoboxes, as I'd like some more input.

I rather like the way the German Wikipedia handles virus taxoboxes, e.g. at de:Caudovirales. Perhaps we here should have one section for the classification, using the ICTV 2018 system, and another section for information like the genome/Baltimore virus group. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Otto Naegeli-Preis

Hello, Hannes Röst,

Thanks for creating Otto Naegeli-Preis! I edit here too, under the username Meatsgains and it's nice to meet you :-)

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

Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

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 prepend it with {{Re|Meatsgains}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

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

Meatsgains^(talk) 02:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Richard Yost) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Richard Yost.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice work - The references needed more info which I have added, I think you copied and pasted the categories for a different article without changing them. Can you please check my corrections to the categories in case I have misunderstood something

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Susan Weintraub) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Susan Weintraub.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Society for Mass Spectrometry moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Canadian Society for Mass Spectrometry, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Thanks for creating Biemann Medal.

User:Doomsdayer520 while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Thank you for your new article on the Biemann Medal.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Canadian National Proteomics Network

Hello Hannes Röst,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Canadian National Proteomics Network for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS

This review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24845483

Meets WP:MEDRS. Why did you remove it? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

spell.py

Greetings!

As a fellow Wikipedia spell-checker, I was wondering if your spell.py tool is still supported? For example this attempt is getting some sort of libmysqlclient error. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nice to hear from you! I currently host it here: http://wiki.hroest.ch/wiki/spell.py Best --04:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Metabolomics (journal)

Hello, Hannes Röst. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Metabolomics".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Meszzy² (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Emily M. Gray Award, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Douglas Robinson. 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) 06:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPROF Highly cited quantification

Hello I was hoping you could help me understand how many citations qualify for NPROF. You commented in one discussion that 15 citations over 16 years is not enough to qualify. I think I read somewhere that 100 citations was enough. Could you help me get a sense of how many citations are needed to qualify for notability for academics? Nweil (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nweil there is no hard cutoff that we can use since different fields have vastly different citation rates. In biomedicine, 100 citations is very little and would never convey notability, the threshold is probably closer to 10k. However in the humanities, 100(s) of citations is actually decent and a few book reviews will provide notability. There is no clear numeric cutoff and it depends on the field, the circumstances, potential awards the person has won etc. We cannot easily turn WP:NPROF#1 into a numeric cutoff that is why it is worded the way it is: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.". Best regards --hroest 00:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. And it is cumulative correct? Like in the context of the George Leef discussion, he has over 200 citations across all his works, so that might actually qualify? Or it has to be focused on a single work. Nweil (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, this is cumulative as WP:NPROF#1 states "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.". However, at his field it seems that 200 citations would qualify for a discussion about him, and not immediate dismissal, but 200 is not really be a lot in this field. --hroest 03:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Smith (pathologist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I wanted you to know that your edit was reverted by me not because of what you said but because it can be fixed by adding more info from the same source (i.e. Swissinfo). Best, 172.58.236.248 (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dont necessarily disagree with the point, however we have to respect WP:DUE and look at Economy of Germany, Economy of USA and others which also do not discuss the topic. Secondly, we have to look at the quality of the source. It is a survey which are generally unreliable and dont provide accurate numbers for what they actually want to measure. Thirdly, even worse, the survey measured "Suspected cases" of a wide variety of crimes ranging from embezzlement to sexual misconduct which are vastly different. --hroest 14:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It says according to "an international whistleblowing study". The fact it is not mentioned by other country articles yet does not interfere with anything or prejudice my edit according to WP rules. The source is Swissinfo which meets WP:RS here. Best. 172.58.239.26 (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something appears in a RS, does not mean it *has* to be added to the article. You can start a discussion at Talk:Economy_of_Switzerland to try and convince other editors that it should be added. It would for example make more sense to say "Switzerland has comparatively low rates of suspected unethical behavior within companies" which is more accurate and provides a very different picture than what you added. --hroest 13:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC) PS: I also looked at the original study which is what we should rely on in this case and not the media report. The study was a survey by Fachhochschule Graubunden and as far as I can tell self published and *not* published in a peer reviewed journal, so the lowest rung in terms of scientific research publishing. --hroest 13:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hannes rost: I don't think what you say contradicts the fact we should report all the FACTS here. We dont care about the "image" as long as it is reported by a reliable source like Swissinfo here. You can add other reports as you see fit later on to complete the picture. Regards. 2A02:120B:7F4:1310:4E3C:16FF:FE2A:C48E (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but at the same time we should not add low quality information and the article has to present a coherent overall picture, see WP:UNDUE. --hroest 19:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomson Medal (Royal Society of New Zealand), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robert Anderson and Peter Lee.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blockchain/cryptocurrencies standard notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

JBchrch talk 14:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Your edit to Houston Grand Opera 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. Sennecaster (What now?) 02:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sennecaster: I would appreciate if you could be a bit more careful when accusing other people of violating copyright. If you review my changes in the article, you will see that I did not add any copyrighted material, I did however re-phrase and cleanup some of the existing text in the lede. Thanks and I hope you are more careful in the future. --hroest 02:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went off of a copypatrol link, and compared the second paragraph you added to the link provided in there. I used Archive.org to prove that the paragraph A) wasn't a ~~rewrite~~ reorder and B) was not the website copying wikipedia. I consulted offwiki with other editors if the paragraph was creative enough to be copyrightable or not, and it was. It was closely paraphrased or even directly copied enough that it counted as a copyright violation. We also always template for copyright violations, even small ones. The rest of your edit was fine. Hope this helped! Sennecaster (What now?) 02:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sennecaster: you misunderstand me, I am not contesting that the text was a copyvio, I am only saying that I was not the one who added it. If you look at my diff you can see that I did not add the text, I made changes to the lede and restructured the text that was already in the article, unaware that it was a copyright violation. The actual copyright violation was added here in September 2016. I understand that your tool flagged my edit but I expect due diligence before accusing me of adding copyrighted material and threatening to block me. I hope this clears up the confusion and we can move forward with removing whatever was copied, which seems to even more than just the text that you removed. --hroest 14:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot threaten to block you. I have restored to your revision since it was a reverse copy, but I do want to point out that the diff showed your text as an addition and not a reorder like normal. Sennecaster (What now?) 14:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I cannot threaten to block you" -- but it seems you did: Your text literally says "violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing." I hope you can see how this could be considered confrontational, especially in a case like this where I did not add any copyrighted material. You make a point that the software did indicate that I added the material, I make the point that the software was wrong. It was a misunderstanding, I hope we can leave it at that. --hroest 16:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eradication of infectious diseases, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto WikiClub meetup

Hello! You are listed as a previous member of the Toronto WikiClub. The WikiClub is hosting a meetup event on 7 July 2024, and we'd love to have you if you are around! We have a photowalk and an editathon planned, as well as time for discussion! More info here: Wikipedia:Meetup/Toronto/2024 July 7

SophieWMCA (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Shanghai Ranking 2007

[2] Shanghai Ranking 2008 Top 100 world universities in Natural Sciences and Mathematics

[3] Times Higher Education - QS World University Rankings 2007

[JB-4] ETH Jahresreport

[5] Top 500 European Universities

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]