User talk:CRP_Cormac
Editor talk page·2 messages
I think we disagree about Hunan Aslsen Technology
We have now reverted each other twice on Hunan Aslsen Technology, which is a sign that the disagreement is substantive rather than accidental. My reading is that the source supports the weaker of the two claims. Rather than continue in edit summaries, shall we put it on the article talk page and let someone else weigh in? — ForestPlotFinn (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, and I would rather be argued out of it than keep reverting. I have opened a section. — CRP_Cormac (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Wording in Nantong Guangyuan Chemical
I have reworded one sentence in Nantong Guangyuan Chemical 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. — PurityClaimPia (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
No objection. Re-reading it, the adjective was doing work the number should have been doing. — CRP_Cormac (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)