User talk:CustomsClarke

Welcome. Your work on Lyophilisation 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. — SupplyWatchSuri (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

We have now reverted each other twice on Lyophilisation, which is a sign that the disagreement is substantive rather than accidental. My reading is that the source supports the weaker of the two claims. Rather than continue in edit summaries, shall we put it on the article talk page and let someone else weigh in? — ToleranceTove (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes — edit summaries are the wrong length for this. I have put both readings side by side on the talk page. — CustomsClarke (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

The excursion figure in Lyophilisation is given without the study it derives from and without the duration it applies to. A tolerance without a time is not a tolerance. I have tagged it rather than removing it because I suspect the source exists. — Chromatokid (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Added. The study tested a shorter excursion than the article was claiming, so the figure has come down as well. — CustomsClarke (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You removed a sourced paragraph from Lyophilisation 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. — A1c_Alder (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

That was careless of me. My objection was to the source, and I should have said so on the talk page rather than deleting. — CustomsClarke (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)