User talk:Compounding_Cate

You removed a sourced paragraph from Customs seizure 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. — LabelLibby (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring it. I have put my reasoning on the talk page and will leave it there rather than editing again. — Compounding_Cate (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The guidance cited in ISO 9001 has no date, and it has been revised at least once since the version the article describes. Adding the year would make it clear which version the sentence refers to. — ClinicCorrespondent (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Added. The article was describing the superseded version, which I have now said explicitly. — Compounding_Cate (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The {{cn}} tags on Active pharmaceutical ingredient have all been addressed, so I have removed the article-level banner. Thank you for working through them — that backlog had been open since last autumn. — SyringeSybille (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Good. I have added the article to my watchlist so the same material does not come back uncited. — Compounding_Cate (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Two sentences in ISO 9001 tell a reader what to do about importation. This wiki describes the legal position and does not advise on it — the distinction is in Project:Medical disclaimer and it matters more here than almost anywhere. I have rewritten both descriptively. — TrialsTabitha (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, and thank you for rewriting rather than deleting. The descriptive form carries the same information. — Compounding_Cate (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Active pharmaceutical ingredient states a legal position without naming the jurisdiction it applies in. Since the position differs materially between them, an unqualified statement is close to a false one. Which was intended? — SafetySignalSid (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

You are right. I have named the jurisdiction and added a second one for contrast. — Compounding_Cate (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Customs seizure states a legal position without naming the jurisdiction it applies in. Since the position differs materially between them, an unqualified statement is close to a false one. Which was intended? — AmylinAmos (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair. An unqualified legal statement here really is close to a false one. Corrected. — Compounding_Cate (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC)