User talk:TrialsTabitha

There is a request for comment open on Talk:Syringe dead space 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. — EscalationEira (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer — I have commented. — TrialsTabitha (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

In Glucagon-like peptide-1 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? — IncretinIvo (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2024 (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. — TrialsTabitha (talk) 09:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Lyophilisation was in Category:Purification but not in its parent chain, so it was invisible from the topic portal. I have fixed it. If you are adding categories in bulk, Special:WantedPages lists the ones that are currently claimed by articles but have no page. — RepackRadek (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I had been adding the leaf category without the parent, which explains why the portal listings looked so thin. — TrialsTabitha (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Sharps disposal have consistently favoured one organisation, and one of them added promotional wording. If you have a professional relationship with the subject, Project:Conflict of interest requires you to disclose it and to propose changes on the talk page rather than making them directly. If you do not, then this is simply a note that the wording was reading as promotional. — BUD_Bertram (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear: I have no relationship with the subject. I take the point about the wording and have rephrased it. — TrialsTabitha (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

A move has been proposed at Talk:Reconstitution calculator. Since you wrote most of the article's current text you may have a view on whether the proposed title is the one a reader would search for. — MergeMorwenna (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Commented. My own view is that the current title is the searchable one, but I hold it loosely. — TrialsTabitha (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2025 (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. — CategoryBot (talk) 05:06, 5 August 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. — SchemaSorcha (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Noted, and thank you for fixing rather than reverting. I had not registered that the convention was written down anywhere. — TrialsTabitha (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)