User talk:Compounding_Cate

We have now reverted each other twice on Beyond-use date, 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? — HOMA_Hettie (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and I would rather be argued out of it than keep reverting. I have opened a section. — Compounding_Cate (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

In Shanghai Wibson Biotechnology you added an incidence figure without its comparator rate. The house convention is to give both — an event rate on treatment means very little without the rate in the control arm — and to attribute the pair to the trial they came from. Would you be able to add the placebo rate and the citation? — ChainCustodyChad (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Fair — the tags are reasonable and I will work through them. Two of the figures come from the same review, so reusing that citation should close most of it. — Compounding_Cate (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The categories on Shanghai Wibson Biotechnology and Beyond-use date 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? — TFA_Counterion (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I had been adding the leaf category without the parent, which explains why the portal listings looked so thin. — Compounding_Cate (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Just to say that Syringe dead space is substantially better than it was a month ago. The table you added does the work that three paragraphs of prose were failing to do. — GlossaryGleb (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that is kind. The table was mostly a matter of noticing that three paragraphs were all trying to say the same thing. — Compounding_Cate (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to PeptidePedia Wiki. Two things worth reading early: Project:Verifiability, which is stricter here than on most wikis because of the subject matter, and Project:Manual of style, which settles the unit and spelling conventions so that articles can be read comparatively.

If a claim is worth making it is worth citing, and if a number is worth giving it is worth giving with its units and its source. Ask anything on the talk page of the article in question — that is where the reference-desk traffic goes. — LotTraceLuka (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Given your edits around Lyophilisation, you might find the working-group pages useful — Project:Analytical working group, Project:Pharmacology working group and Project:Clinical evidence working group each keep a short priority list, and the priorities are mostly things one person can finish in an afternoon. — RepackRadek (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, the priority lists are genuinely more useful than a general backlog. — Compounding_Cate (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)