User talk:Perrakis

Welcome!
Hello, Perrakis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Perrakis. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * In a group discussion today, a colleague informed me that according to Altmetric (https://nature.altmetric.com/details/138909600/wikipedia) there is a mention of AlphaFill in the Czech AlphaFold page (https://cs.wikipedia.org/?curid=1677708). I want to make it perfectly clear that I have nothing to do with that and I gave up editing this page after your notes. I also must say that I sincerely hope that this development shows you that my motives were not the ones attributed by you. I do also hope that this misunderstanding can be resolved using this incident as a trigger to update the content on the English page. I hope you will reconsider. Perrakis (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear MrOllie - I think that having an anonymous person called "mister Ollie" reverting a change signed with my full name, and simply referencing a published and refereed scientific article and web site directly relevant for what is being presented in this page, and under very clear reference using language from the scientific article, and accusing for "self promotion" is unfair, unprofessional and non-scientific. All scientists want to make sure that our work is presented in the relevant press, and I tried to make that in a transparent manner, only in the interest of providing scientific information that adds to the user experience. I am deeply disappointed by your reaction, which is is disregarding scientific context: I am not promoting ourself, I am promoting the science of my team, by removing a statement that is no longer true based on the verified scientific record. Sincerely, Perrakis (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC) A. Perrakis


 * I should add that the editing was not about "yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors" but about a scientific article and presented in a neutral manner. I admit I was unaware of the "reuest edit" template, which I will use. Perrakis (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All scientists want to make sure that our work is presented in the relevant press The problem is that Wikipedia is not the 'relevant press', and in fact the Wikipedia community has specifically decided that the encylopedia is not a venue to get the word out about new developments. You have entered a community that has its own expectations and guidlines, which differ significantly from what you may be used to in the academic world. You should respect that. Most of your Wikipedia editing activity so far has revolved around sharing your own work. As a subject matter expert you are no doubt familiar with a wide range of sources of diverse authorship - if you are here to help write an encyclopedia, you should cite those, rather than yourself. If you are only here to share your own work - well, that is exactly what a conflict of interest is considered to be here. MrOllie (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Perrakis (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC) Dear MrOllie, Indeed, I have clearly only edited articles in Wikipedia to add the work of my team - I do not not consider it my own. I have not done that systematically, but in fact only for two of our papers, which I considered it was important. I note that I only did that twice, when an an article was already existing, and I only added information. I also see you changed the entry on Detyrosination, leaving the paper of our competitors, which of course I had also cited, while citing our work: so! Is that integrity and fairness? You mark spam (!) the reference to the work of my team, but you leave the reference on the work of our competitors (published back to back) which I also added! You think that my actions make me a bad contributor that is not interested in the scientific record and you mark me down as a simply self-interested individual, without reviewing the actual relevance and context of the information I provide but only based on your opinion (which is not even fully reflected in the guidelines). I find that personally offensive and un-professional, and most of all deeply disappointing. Let me assure you, that I had not bad intention, just wanted to add reference to the work of my team for the benefit of the readers, and I will let the editors decide if my request for change is appropriate or not, I hope based on the CONTENT and not my (fully disclosed) identity.

I would like to politely ask you, for the detyrosination page, from FIVE years ago to either remove ALL of my edits (including citing our competitors) or leaving them all in. But just removing only one out of the two references to the literature, is unfair to my collaborators.

I admit I find it sad that you take actions without valuing the content, but you think that "self promotion" is adding two of my ~200 publications in wikipedia, in the course of five years. You do not even consider if that information is properly presented or valid, you just presume malice. How sad. Perrakis (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

May 2023
Hello, I'm Dudhhr. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Gerard Kleywegt, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 15:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)