User talk:DefinedTermDov

You removed a sourced paragraph from Bacteriostatic water 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. — DiffWatchDov (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair. I have left the paragraph in place and tagged the sentence I actually doubt, which is one of four. — DefinedTermDov (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

In Semaglutide 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? — FreightFenna (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Both figures added, treatment and control. You are right that the rate alone said nothing. — DefinedTermDov (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for going through List of GLP-1 receptor agonists and giving every term a definition rather than a link. A glossary that links to articles the reader then has to read is not a glossary, and this one now works as one. — OrphanPageOrin (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. A glossary that only links is a table of contents with extra steps. — DefinedTermDov (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

List of GLP-1 receptor agonists is a list without a stated inclusion criterion, so there is no principled way to say whether an entry belongs. A sentence in the lead saying what qualifies — and what does not — would settle the three additions currently being argued about. — Chromatokid (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Added to the lead, with the exclusions stated. Two of the three disputed entries fail it. — DefinedTermDov (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2026 (UTC)