User talk:MazdutideMads
Editor talk page·2 messages
Neutrality of the reception section in Reconstitution calculator
The reception section of Reconstitution calculator currently reads more warmly than its sources support. Two of the four statements are attributed to community tallies, which per Project:Verifiability are weak evidence and must be labelled as such at each point of use. I have added the labels; the substance is unchanged. — ArchiveBot (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
No objection. Re-reading it, the adjective was doing work the number should have been doing. — MazdutideMads (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
I think we disagree about Enteroendocrine L cell
We have now reverted each other twice on Enteroendocrine L cell, 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? — SatietySunniva (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
Agreed, and I would rather be argued out of it than keep reverting. I have opened a section. — MazdutideMads (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)