User talk:FormularyFrida

Welcome to PeptidePedia Wiki. Two things worth reading early: Project:Verifiability, which is stricter here than on most wikis because of the subject matter, and Project:Manual of style, which settles the unit and spelling conventions so that articles can be read comparatively.

If a claim is worth making it is worth citing, and if a number is worth giving it is worth giving with its units and its source. Ask anything on the talk page of the article in question — that is where the reference-desk traffic goes. — EndpointEnid (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Your run of edits through Retention time and Medutest tidied up an inconsistency that had been bothering me for a while: the two articles were quoting the same figure under different definitions. Thank you for reconciling them rather than just picking one. — IsocraticIla (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Picking one would have been quicker and would have buried the disagreement rather than settling it. — FormularyFrida (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

An automated pass normalised the citation formatting on Retention time 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. — CategoryBot (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I have reverted your recent change to STEP trial programme. The source cited does report the number, but it reports it for a different population than the sentence now claims. If I have misread the paper, please say so on the article talk page and I will restore it — I would rather be corrected than leave it wrong in either direction. — ToleranceTove (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Correct. I have put the number back with the population stated and the sentence is more useful for it. — FormularyFrida (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2026 (UTC)