User talk:SecretagogueSol

I have reverted your recent change to Incretin effect. 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. — ProglucagonPia (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You read it correctly and I did not — the population is different. Thank you for catching it; I have struck my addition. — SecretagogueSol (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

In Syringe dead space the reference interval is given without the assay. Since the interval is method-dependent, stating it bare makes it look more universal than it is. Do you have the method from the source, or should the interval be attributed to the laboratory that published it? — CategoryBot (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Good question, and I do not know. I have tagged it and asked on the article talk page. — SecretagogueSol (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to say that Syringe dead space is substantially better than it was a month ago. The table you added does the work that three paragraphs of prose were failing to do. — COA_Colwyn (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2026 (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. — SecretagogueSol (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The reception section of Incretin effect 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. — ToneTilda (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

No objection. Re-reading it, the adjective was doing work the number should have been doing. — SecretagogueSol (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)