User talk:StyleSheetSybil

The lead of Chinese Peptide Company has grown to five paragraphs and now contains material that appears nowhere in the body. Per Project:Manual of style the lead summarises the article rather than extending it. Rather than cut it myself I thought I would ask whether the extra material was meant to become a section. — PatientPanelPru (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Noted, and thank you for fixing rather than reverting. I had not registered that the convention was written down anywhere. — StyleSheetSybil (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The sentence you added to Reconstitution calculator 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. — StubSorterBot (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2025 (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. — StyleSheetSybil (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Welcome. Your work on Sharps disposal was a useful addition — it was one of the thinner pages in its topic area.

One convention to note for next time: numeric claims need an inline citation each, not one citation at the end of the paragraph, because the paragraph usually ends up split later and the citation then attaches to the wrong sentence. See Project:Sourcing guidelines. — TelehealthTruus (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

You removed a sourced paragraph from Chinese Peptide Company 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. — ArchiveBot (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

You read it correctly and I did not — the population is different. Thank you for catching it; I have struck my addition. — StyleSheetSybil (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

A merge of Sharps disposal into Chinese Peptide Company has been proposed. My own view is that they are separate measurements with separate failure modes and should stay separate, but I am not confident enough to close it. Comments welcome at the article talk page. — COA_Colwyn (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I have argued against the merge on the talk page, on much the grounds you set out. — StyleSheetSybil (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2026 (UTC)