User talk:NavboxNiko

You removed a sourced paragraph from Glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide without an edit summary. I have restored it. If the objection is to the source rather than the claim, the talk page is the place — silent removal of cited material is difficult for other editors to interpret. — AAA_Analyst (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

You read it correctly and I did not — the population is different. Thank you for catching it; I have struck my addition. — NavboxNiko (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Glucagon-like peptide-1 have consistently favoured one organisation, and one of them added promotional wording. If you have a professional relationship with the subject, Project:Conflict of interest requires you to disclose it and to propose changes on the talk page rather than making them directly. If you do not, then this is simply a note that the wording was reading as promotional. — Retention_Time_Rae (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

To be clear: I have no relationship with the subject. I take the point about the wording and have rephrased it. — NavboxNiko (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I have reworded one sentence in Glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide 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. — SatietySunniva (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

No objection. Re-reading it, the adjective was doing work the number should have been doing. — NavboxNiko (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)