User talk:INN_Ingrid

Given your edits around WuXi TIDES, you might find the working-group pages useful — Project:Analytical working group, Project:Pharmacology working group and Project:Clinical evidence working group each keep a short priority list, and the priorities are mostly things one person can finish in an afternoon. — CheckSumChase (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, the priority lists are genuinely more useful than a general backlog. — INN_Ingrid (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

An automated pass normalised the citation formatting on Trial data comparison and expanded two bare identifiers into full citations. One reference could not be resolved and has been left tagged. This is an automated message; replies to it are read by a human eventually, but the article talk page is faster. — CiteBot (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Trial data comparison 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. — MoveRequestMio (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

To be clear: I have no relationship with the subject. I take the point about the wording and have rephrased it. — INN_Ingrid (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Welcome. Your work on Trial data comparison 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. — NeutralNikolai (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

You removed a sourced paragraph from Trial data comparison 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. — SourceHunterSile (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

You read it correctly and I did not — the population is different. Thank you for catching it; I have struck my addition. — INN_Ingrid (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The categories on Sharps disposal and Trial data comparison disagree about where the topic sits. Both are defensible; having both is not, because the two articles then never appear in the same listing. Could you take a view on the talk page of whichever you know better? — UnitAuditUwe (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I had been adding the leaf category without the parent, which explains why the portal listings looked so thin. — INN_Ingrid (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)