User talk:SafetySignalSid

Your recent edits to ChinaPeptides 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. — ChainCustodyChad (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear: I have no relationship with the subject. I take the point about the wording and have rephrased it. — SafetySignalSid (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You added the mass-balance table to Trial data comparison. Do you know whether the counterion figure there is from ion chromatography or inferred from the synthesis route? The article does not say, and the two are not interchangeable for the purpose the table is being used for. — SemaxSevi (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Good question, and I do not know. I have tagged it and asked on the article talk page. — SafetySignalSid (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Your run of edits through Reconstitution calculator and WuXi TIDES tidied up an inconsistency that had been bothering me for a while: the two articles were quoting the same figure under different definitions. Thank you for reconciling them rather than just picking one. — ArchiveAudit (talk) 20:41, 15 November 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. — SafetySignalSid (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

The sentence you added to WuXi TIDES draws a human conclusion from an animal study. That is the specific case Project:No original research is aimed at. Describing the study, its model and the absence of human data is both permitted and, I would argue, more informative than the inference. — PrepHPLC_Pia (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

That is a fair reading of the policy. I have rewritten it to describe the study and to say plainly that no human data exists. — SafetySignalSid (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I have reverted your recent change to Chinese Peptide Company. The source cited does report the number, but it reports it for a different population than the sentence now claims. If I have misread the paper, please say so on the article talk page and I will restore it — I would rather be corrected than leave it wrong in either direction. — COA_Colwyn (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

You read it correctly and I did not — the population is different. Thank you for catching it; I have struck my addition. — SafetySignalSid (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)