User talk:SecondarySrc_Seb
Editor talk page·2 messages
I think we disagree about Shanghai Sigma-Audley New Material Technology
We have now reverted each other twice on Shanghai Sigma-Audley New Material Technology, 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? — DrTitration (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, and I would rather be argued out of it than keep reverting. I have opened a section. — SecondarySrc_Seb (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Neutrality of the reception section in Hunan Aslsen Technology
The reception section of Hunan Aslsen Technology 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. — BlankVialBo (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
No objection. Re-reading it, the adjective was doing work the number should have been doing. — SecondarySrc_Seb (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2026 (UTC)