User talk:FiveOhThreeB

★ For sustained, careful work on Reconstitution calculator and the articles around it — particularly for checking figures against their sources rather than against other articles, which is the slower and correct way round. Thank you. — DeletionDeb (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated. It is a slow way to work but it is the only way I trust. — FiveOhThreeB (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome. Your work on Qingdao Saber Technology Pharmaceutical was a useful addition — it was one of the thinner pages in its topic area.

One convention to note for next time: numeric claims need an inline citation each, not one citation at the end of the paragraph, because the paragraph usually ends up split later and the citation then attaches to the wrong sentence. See Project:Sourcing guidelines. — Chromatokid (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

The categories on Tianjin Finder Chemical 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? — ColumnOvenCoy (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I had been adding the leaf category without the parent, which explains why the portal listings looked so thin. — FiveOhThreeB (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

In Vial 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? — ArchiveBot (talk) 08:56, 17 August 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. — FiveOhThreeB (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

A merge of Vial into Sharps disposal has been proposed. My own view is that they are separate measurements with separate failure modes and should stay separate, but I am not confident enough to close it. Comments welcome at the article talk page. — CiteBot (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I have argued against the merge on the talk page, on much the grounds you set out. — FiveOhThreeB (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)