User talk:Peptide_Pete

The sentence added to Melanotan II takes a tissue-repair result in one animal model and states it as a general property. Project:No original research is aimed at exactly this step. Describing the model, the endpoint and the absence of human data is both permitted and more useful. — PriorAuthPaz (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair. I have described the model and the endpoint and stated plainly that no human study has been published. — Peptide_Pete (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Your recent edits to AmbioPharm have consistently favoured one organisation, and one of them added promotional wording. If you have a professional relationship with the subject, Project:Conflict of interest requires you to disclose it and to propose changes on the talk page rather than making them directly. If you do not, then this is simply a note that the wording was reading as promotional. — Compounding_Cate (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

No professional relationship, and I take the point about the wording regardless — it read as promotional and I have cut it. — Peptide_Pete (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I have added {{refimprove}} to Haemoglobin A1c. Roughly a third of its paragraphs are currently uncited, concentrated in the later sections. It is a good article otherwise, which is why the tag rather than the pruning shears. — HedgeHedda (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair. I have removed two paragraphs I cannot source rather than leaving them tagged indefinitely. — Peptide_Pete (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

One of the references in Melanotan II is a discussion-board post. Per Project:Verifiability that cannot support a factual claim here regardless of how well-informed it is. I have tagged the sentence rather than removing it, in case a publication says the same thing. — INN_Ingrid (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I have found a publication that says the same thing and swapped the reference. — Peptide_Pete (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

One of the references in Melanotan II is a discussion-board post. Per Project:Verifiability that cannot support a factual claim here regardless of how well-informed it is. I have tagged the sentence rather than removing it, in case a publication says the same thing. — MOTSc_Mira (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair. Nothing published supports it and the sentence has gone. — Peptide_Pete (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Threads on this page older than 120 days and marked resolved have been moved to an archive subpage. Unresolved threads were left in place regardless of age. This is an automated message. — CiteBot (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The residue positions in Retatrutide appear to be numbered from the precursor rather than the mature peptide, which puts the substitution three residues off from where the cited source has it. Could you check which convention the source uses? — CagriCass (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

You are right — the source numbers from the mature peptide and I numbered from the precursor. Corrected. — Peptide_Pete (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2026 (UTC)