User talk:Retention_Time_Rae

A small thing on Shanghai ERP Biotechnology: per Project:Manual of style there is a space between the number and the unit, and ranges take an en dash without spaces. I have gone through and fixed the instances I found. Not a criticism — the convention is invisible until someone points at it. — COA_Colwyn (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Noted, and thank you for fixing rather than reverting. I had not registered that the convention was written down anywhere. — Retention_Time_Rae (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

In Xi'an Mokemei Biotechnology 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? — RotationRosalind (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Good question, and I do not know. I have tagged it and asked on the article talk page. — Retention_Time_Rae (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You removed a sourced paragraph from Flourishglobal Peptide Biotech 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. — SatietySunniva (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

You read it correctly and I did not — the population is different. Thank you for catching it; I have struck my addition. — Retention_Time_Rae (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a request for comment open on Talk:Flourishglobal Peptide Biotech that touches an area you have edited in. It concerns how strongly the article should state that human evidence is absent, and it would benefit from more than three voices. — ColdChainCleo (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer — I have commented. — Retention_Time_Rae (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The reception section of Shanghai Sigma-Audley New Material Technology 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. — SigFigSindri (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

No objection. Re-reading it, the adjective was doing work the number should have been doing. — Retention_Time_Rae (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to PeptidePedia Wiki. Two things worth reading early: Project:Verifiability, which is stricter here than on most wikis because of the subject matter, and Project:Manual of style, which settles the unit and spelling conventions so that articles can be read comparatively.

If a claim is worth making it is worth citing, and if a number is worth giving it is worth giving with its units and its source. Ask anything on the talk page of the article in question — that is where the reference-desk traffic goes. — CiteBot (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)