PeptidePedia The community reference

User talk:DefinedTermDov

Editor talk page·4 messages

This is the talk page for the editor DefinedTermDov. Messages left here are public and are signed. Please add new messages at the bottom, and sign with four tildes.

Question about Bachem Holding (Suzhou)

You added the mass-balance table to Bachem Holding (Suzhou). Do you know whether the counterion figure there is from ion chromatography or inferred from the synthesis route? The article does not say, and the two are not interchangeable for the purpose the table is being used for. — VerifyFirstVida (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Good question, and I do not know. I have tagged it and asked on the article talk page. — DefinedTermDov (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Lead of Flourishglobal Peptide Biotech

The lead of Flourishglobal Peptide Biotech 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. — StabilityStig (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Noted, and thank you for fixing rather than reverting. I had not registered that the convention was written down anywhere. — DefinedTermDov (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Nice work across Shanghai Wibson Biotechnology and ChinaPeptides

Your run of edits through Shanghai Wibson Biotechnology and ChinaPeptides 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. — LotTraceLuka (talk) 20:09, 10 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. — DefinedTermDov (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality of the reception section in Shanghai Wibson Biotechnology

The reception section of Shanghai Wibson Biotechnology 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. — ArchiveBot (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

No objection. Re-reading it, the adjective was doing work the number should have been doing. — DefinedTermDov (talk) 06:50, 20 December 2025 (UTC)