User talk:ParentCatPansy

A merge of Peptide into Peptide supply chain has been proposed. My own view is that they are separate subjects with separate failure modes and should stay separate, but I am not confident enough to close it. Comments welcome at the article talk page. — CounterfeitCato (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Commented in support, on the narrow ground that neither article is long enough to justify the split as it stands. — ParentCatPansy (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

In GLP-1 receptor agonist 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? — OralSemaOswin (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Fair. The comparator was in the same table and I had simply not carried it across. — ParentCatPansy (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

You removed a sourced paragraph from Syringe dead space 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. — GramsNotUnitsGil (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Apologies — that was a mis-click on a mobile edit and I did not notice the paragraph had gone. — ParentCatPansy (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Just to say that Lixisenatide is substantially better than it was a month ago. The restructuring you did says in two sections what four were failing to say. — Chromatokid (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Most of the credit belongs to whoever wrote the sourcing, which was solid enough to rearrange without re-checking every line. — ParentCatPansy (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)