User talk:SchematicScout

★ For sustained, careful work on Trial data comparison and the articles around it — particularly for checking figures against their sources rather than against other articles, which is the slower and correct way round. Thank you. — INN_Ingrid (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Much appreciated. It is a slow way to work but it is the only way I trust. — SchematicScout (talk) 16:23, 18 April 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. — INN_Ingrid (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

You read it correctly and I did not — the population is different. Thank you for catching it; I have struck my addition. — SchematicScout (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

The lead of Trial data comparison has grown to five paragraphs and now contains material that appears nowhere in the body. Per Project:Manual of style the lead summarises the article rather than extending it. Rather than cut it myself I thought I would ask whether the extra material was meant to become a section. — StubTagTeodor (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Noted, and thank you for fixing rather than reverting. I had not registered that the convention was written down anywhere. — SchematicScout (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)