User talk:UnitsUrsula

The sentence you added to Multi-dose vial 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) 18:06, 3 September 2024 (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. — UnitsUrsula (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The lead of Tianjin Finder Chemical 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. — StubTagTeodor (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Noted, and thank you for fixing rather than reverting. I had not registered that the convention was written down anywhere. — UnitsUrsula (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

An automated pass normalised the citation formatting on Tianjin Finder Chemical and expanded two bare identifiers into full citations. One reference could not be resolved and has been left tagged. This is an automated message; replies to it are read by a human eventually, but the article talk page is faster. — StubSorterBot (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Your run of edits through Temperature excursion and Reconstitution calculator 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. — PrepHPLC_Pia (talk) 04:16, 28 June 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. — UnitsUrsula (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Welcome. Your work on Tianjin Finder Chemical 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. — ReportReaderRilla (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

★ For sustained, careful work on Sharps disposal and the articles around it — particularly for checking figures against their sources rather than against other articles, which is the slower and correct way round. Thank you. — RotationRosalind (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Much appreciated. It is a slow way to work but it is the only way I trust. — UnitsUrsula (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)