User talk:Chromatokid

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. — SchemaSorcha (talk) 18:15, 26 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. — Chromatokid (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

In Reconstitution calculator 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? — Ref_Desk_Ron (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Good question, and I do not know. I have tagged it and asked on the article talk page. — Chromatokid (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Threads on this page older than 120 days and marked resolved have been moved to an archive subpage. Unresolved threads were left in place regardless of age. This is an automated message. — StubSorterBot (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The {{cn}} tags on Sangon Biotech have all been addressed, so I have removed the article-level banner. Thank you for working through them — that backlog had been open since last autumn. — PurityClaimPia (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

No argument — the later sections are the weak part. I will take a pass at them this month. — Chromatokid (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

In Chinese Peptide Company you added an incidence figure without its comparator rate. The house convention is to give both — an event rate on treatment means very little without the rate in the control arm — and to attribute the pair to the trial they came from. Would you be able to add the placebo rate and the citation? — DataTableDunja (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair — the tags are reasonable and I will work through them. Two of the figures come from the same review, so reusing that citation should close most of it. — Chromatokid (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The lead of Reconstitution calculator 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. — CiteBot (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Noted, and thank you for fixing rather than reverting. I had not registered that the convention was written down anywhere. — Chromatokid (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Your run of edits through WuXi TIDES and Qingdao Sigma Chemical 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. — GradientGus (talk) 11:37, 29 June 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. — Chromatokid (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)