User talk:A1c_Alder

The lead of Temperature excursion has grown to five paragraphs and now contains material that appears nowhere in the body. Per Project:Manual of style the lead summarises the article rather than extending it. Rather than cut it myself I thought I would ask whether the extra material was meant to become a section. — LedeLeander (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Noted, and thank you for fixing rather than reverting. I had not registered that the convention was written down anywhere. — A1c_Alder (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The categories on Qingdao Saber Technology Pharmaceutical and Multi-dose vial disagree about where the topic sits. Both are defensible; having both is not, because the two articles then never appear in the same listing. Could you take a view on the talk page of whichever you know better? — CiteBot (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I had been adding the leaf category without the parent, which explains why the portal listings looked so thin. — A1c_Alder (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I have reworded one sentence in Temperature excursion that read as an endorsement. The underlying fact is sourced and stayed; only the adjective went. See Project:Neutral point of view — the relevant part is that a number is almost always better than an adjective where one exists. — SupplyWatchSuri (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

No objection. Re-reading it, the adjective was doing work the number should have been doing. — A1c_Alder (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted your recent change to Multi-dose vial. The source cited does report the number, but it reports it for a different population than the sentence now claims. If I have misread the paper, please say so on the article talk page and I will restore it — I would rather be corrected than leave it wrong in either direction. — CategoryBot (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

You read it correctly and I did not — the population is different. Thank you for catching it; I have struck my addition. — A1c_Alder (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a request for comment open on Talk:Multi-dose vial that touches an area you have edited in. It concerns how strongly the article should state that human evidence is absent, and it would benefit from more than three voices. — SyringeSybille (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer — I have commented. — A1c_Alder (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2026 (UTC)