User talk:Drm310/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Thanks for advice

	Thanks for advice
	Thanks for your advice and helpful explanation of how to use Page Curation correctly. --Wakowako (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hall Place

Thanks for the note to BexleyHeritage. Much appreciated. Paul W (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Joseph F. McCormick page

I am Joseph F. McCormick and I found out that an article about my life was posted last year. Much of the information was incomplete and in one case inaccurate. I began editing in the past week and many of my edits were undone because I did not follow guidelines. My intention is that the article be accurate based, as required, on public ally verifiable sources (most all my edits have fallen into this category.) Please note that I did not ask for this article and am perfectly happy that it be removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephfmccormick (talk • contribs) 18:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome! First off, if you find material on the article that is clearly libelous or otherwise violates our policy on information about living people, please feel free to remove it immediately. If you do so, it may be helpful to explain the reasons afterward on the article talk page, here. Beyond such edits, the preferred (though not mandatory) method of providing information for the article is to post suggestions, requests, and sources to the talk page and let uninvolved editors edit the article accordingly. This is because it is difficult for us to write neutrally about ourselves. In any case, your edits are subject to the same terms of use as those of all other editors and are subject to collaborative modification. VQuakr (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Please contact me

Hi there - I am the Director, Community Advocacy for the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that supports Wikipedia. It's very important that I talk to you - would you please email me at philippewikimedia.org at your earliest opportunity? Again, it's very important and urgent that I speak with you. Thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Cabiri page

Hello,

I received notice of some issues flagged/raised by you regarding this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabiri_(performance_troupe)

It is true that I have been a significant contributor to this page, and that I am also affiliated with the nonprofit organization the page is about. I would appreciate your suggestions on how this article could be restructured or rewritten in order to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. There are numerous members of the local community and the local media who could rewrite the page if that would be helpful.

Thank you,

Charlymccreary (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Jennifer Horn

Please remove the Jennifer Horn page from Wikipedia. It is full of lies created by her political opponents. For instance, she was never expelled from college and any campaign debt she had was a personal loan from herself to her campaign. She has forgiven this debt and closed the account. Therefore, she has no campaign debt.

Please remove the page or we will take legal action. William S. Horn (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a volunteer editor and it is beyond my power to delete pages. Furthermore you have now made a legal threat which is strictly forbidden. I have reported this to the administrator's noticeboard and they will decide whatever actions are appropriate. If there is libellous material on the page then you should have engaged other editors on the article talk page and followed the proper channels for dispute resolution to remove it, instead of taking such a hostile position. --Drm310 (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Drug Industry Documents Archive page

Thanks for the comments/talk about conflict of interest on the Drug Industry Document Archive page - I am affiliated with the university that maintains the archive and I took a look at the article and do not see any info that is biased or more than informational. I was careful to only include what the archive holds and some outside articles that include information about where the documents originated from. Let me know if you think further checking for neutral content is warranted, otherwise, could you please remove the top orange box about neutrality of content? thanks! Racheltaketa (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Rumour (New Zealand band)

Hi There Thank you for your advice re conflict of interest I have taken steps to comply with wikipedia protocol and will continue to do this on on-going basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacques Koolen (talk • contribs) 22:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Luke Freeman / Young Australian Skeptics

Hi Drm310!

Thanks for the comments about conflict of interest etc on the Young Australian Skeptics page. Let me know how you think it has progressed, the state of neutrality and if the COI statement is sufficient enough to remove the boxes from the top of the article.

Thanks for your help. I'm new to this and trying to be more active seeing as I've got so much value from Wikipedia over the years. Lukekfreeman (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

DataStax

Please look at Talk:DataStax section "Article rewrite due to copyright infringement notice". I have been waiting to see whether you object to the change proposed on December 20. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Rumour (New Zealand band)

Hi There, Thank you for the changes and advice. I am continuing the cleanup process. Jacques Koolen (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Jacques KoolenJacques Koolen (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Trying to rescue an unreferenced BLP

I responded there, but as I feel the subject notable enough and the article savable, I also copied the discussion to Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron's Rescue list where the article may get the attention it requires. No need to AFD quite yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:"Writing about yourself"

See User_talk:Tuckerresearch#Article_on_Joseph_Davidovits.

Man! The only relevant part of the notice in this case is "If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site." And the subject had notified it in the talk page just after making that edit.

Anyway, it is me whom should be accused. It was me who assisted him. ···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 20:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the citation on the Brazeau article. I just threw it on there as quickly as possible because that was a major WP:BLP minefield (and in fact I thought it was bogus at first). 70.72.211.35 (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

username issues

I have noticed lately that a large percentage of violators of WP:CORPNAME have a tag on their talk page from you asking them to discuss their name. Most of these have been reported to WP:UAA by other users. This puts reviewing admins in the position of seeing an obvious blockable name, but being forced to wait up to a week to take any action. If there is not a discussion template on their page it can be dealt with in seconds using a "soft block". In this manner the user gets the message that they cannot use such a name, period, but that we are willing to give them a chance to create a new account with a non-infringing name and try to comply with our editing guidelines. It is much simpler than putting the report in WP:UAA/HP for a week and then re-evaluating it. You aren't violating any policies or anything, but many of the regulars who work at UAA find this to be the practice as it is simple, direct, fast, and usually requires no follow-up. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Please advise re outing

Regarding WP:COIN#Trent Leyshand. I definitely want to avoid outing issues. Another editor commented here that Morryone had self-identified when uploading an image. Please advise if I should retract anything. — Brianhe (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Opinion needed on BP article

Hi Drm310, thank you again for your assistance with the financial data updates on the BP article. Since you have been helpful and have experience with COI issues, I would like to ask if you can review some new wording in the article's section on the Caspian Sea gas leak, which I believe does not follow WP:NPOV. I have made a request on the BP Talk page, but I believe most editors involved there are currently busy working on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article and have not had time to look. If you have time, can you look at my request on the Talk page and reply there? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

DataStax

Hi, Thanks for getting back about the DataStax article -- and I can understand why someone in Saskatoon would take vacations this time of year. You missed an articles-for-deletion discussion caused by COI and Notability problems, but the copyright violation is definitely gone and only trivialities remain. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Help with proper response

I've been approached by an individual regarding an article. He has presented a revision here Talk:Dany_Bahar and I feel I should bring in another more experienced editor to redress the issues that stand out to me. Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Sincerely,
Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 20:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've left a response at Talk:Dany Bahar which I hope will guide the editor. --Drm310 (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice: a major contributor to this article appears to have close connection with its subject

Hello,

This afternoon, I made a couple changes to the article "Giants Are Small". Shortly afterwards, as I was checking if those changes had been saved, the following message appeared above the article:

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (March 2013)

It is correct that I am closely related to Giants Are Small - I am one of its founders. My only intent was to update an article which was published by someone I don't know and which comprised certain errors and lacked information about an upcoming show produced by our company. I didn't know that I was not supposed to do this. I have tried to understand how to proceed, but I have to say -- it is hard to find my own way throughout the labyrinth of information and procedures of Wikipedia. Ma corrections are factual and accurate, so I would like to maintain them. But if it is at the cost of having this notice at the top of the article, I am happy to remove them, because this seems to remove all credibility to the article.

Could you please advice on how to proceed from here on.

Very much appreciated,

Thank you,

Edouard Getaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantsaresmall (talk • contribs) 06:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I know the rules here are rather complicated, but they do exist for good reasons. Here's some advice which I hope will make your experience a better one - helpful links are in blue.

1. Your username must be changed because it cannot represent a group, company or organization - it can only represent you as an individual. Go here to request a change of username. Your account could be blocked from editing for this reason, so I would do this as soon as possible.
2. Because you are closely connected to the subject, you are in a conflict of interest (COI) position. COI editors are not prohibited from directly editing articles to which they're connected, but it's not advised because of the perception of bias or promotional intent. The recommended course of action is to suggest changes on the article's talk page. First, openly disclose your connection to the subject (as you've done here), and then suggest the changes you want made. Other disconnected editors will appreciate your transparency and have confidence that you're acting in good faith.
3. Note that any changes you suggest must be supported by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Examples are major newspapers, magazines, TV news organizations, etc. that have editorial oversight. Both online and print sources of this nature are valid.

Hopefully this has answered some of your questions and given you some direction. Feel free to contact me again if you need more assistance. Good luck! --Drm310 (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Xaiml

What do you suggest that I do to keep the Xaiml page? I feel that the page is relevant and useful. Just tell me what should be done and I will do it.

Thank you,

DevynCJohnson (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Devyn. Since you are new to Wikipedia, there are a few issues with Xaiml that you might not be aware of. I've embedded helpful links in blue or red.

1. Wikipedia articles must be about subjects that are notable - that is, of interest to the world at large. A subject's notability is established by sufficient evidence provided by reliable independent sources. The essay entitled Notability (software) further expands upon this topic by giving some guidelines about whether a software article is worthy of inclusion. Unfortunately, Xaiml fails to meet these minimum standards to be considered notable, and so another editor has proposed that the article should be deleted on that basis.
2. Because you are its developer, you have personal and professional connection to the subject and therefore in a conflict of interest (COI) position. COI editors are not prohibited from creating or editing articles about subjects to which they're connected, but it's generally discouraged. COI editors often have an inflated perception of the subject's importance and/or intend to use Wikipedia for promoting their product. The plain and simple conflict of interest guide is a good resource for connected editors like yourself.
3. COI editors are advised to use the Articles for creation tool to create new articles, where disconnected editors can review them first and give their evaluations. COI editors that want to change existing articles are advised to make changes on the article's talk page instead. In any case, you should disclose your connection on your user page - other editors will appreciate your honesty and transparency, and be more assured that you're editing in good faith.

If you can provide some reliable, independent sources that have coverage of Xiaml, then there's a chance that it could remain. However, just saying "it's useful" without explaining why is not persuasive enough to affect the outcome of the discussion. If the article does get deleted, don't take it personally. Lots of Wikipedia editors have had articles deleted when they were newcomers and unfamiliar with the policies here. --Drm310 (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, your answer is very insightful. I will remove Xaiml and wait until other websites host information on Xaiml before I return the information. DevynCJohnson (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issue

I see that you tagged United Synagogue Youth as a possible copyvio. Can you identify the possible source?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I tagged that article with {{Multiple issues}} back on January 30. However a bunch of edits, including my own, have since been RevDel'd, and I cannot recall from memory where the source was. However, the editor Moonriddengirl mentions in this edit [1] to an involved IP editor that there were copyvios from http://www.usy.org/escape/na/wheels/ and other sources. --Drm310 (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I was planning to look into it, but looks like MRG is on it. Looks like it is now resolved. Thanks for the answer. Just for future interest, I do some work at WP:CP, and it is always more challenging when someone reports a possible copyvio and doesn't report the site where they found the words. In some cases, people report possible copyvios because the wording doesn't seem natural, and in those cases there is nothing to do but search, but if you do report it because you found some similar text eslewhere, it is MUCH easier to investigate if we have the url.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

Dear Drm310

I saw your comments and advice on my article titled The Devil in the Deal: 50 Secrets to Successful Dealmaking and just wanted to thank you. I truly appreciate you support and guidance as I'm new to Wiki. I would just like to apologise for deleting the maintenance templates - I didn't mean to.

How does one suggest changes on the talk page if you are a COI editor? Do you just click on the talk page and then start typing. I'd really appreciate your advice on this matter.

Thank you Yours sincerely SusanEason (SusanEason (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC))

Hello Susan. Before you suggest changes, have your proposed wording prepared as well as the sources you are citing (either website URLs or print publications). Start out by disclosing your affiliation with the subject and then insert your proposed changes.

As to how it's done... on the talk page you can click the "New Section" link near the top right to start a new topic. Enter a heading (e.g. Suggested changes) and then type away in the big text area below.

When you would like to respond to someone's comments under a topic heading, click the [edit] link to the right of the heading and add your comments to the bottom. It's also considered proper to indent your reply using colon characters (:), which has effect of a tab.

Also, remember to sign your talk page posts at the very end with four tilde characters (~~~~), which will insert your signature when you save your edit. There's also a toolbar button at the top of the edit window with a picture of a pencil, which will pop the tildes in with one click. Best of luck to you. --Drm310 (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you once again

Dear Drm310

Once again thank you so much for your help. It's so appreciated

Kind regards (SusanEason (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC))

RE: Club Alpbach Croatia

Alright, I sincerely apologize for the delay - real life took over for a bit. I looked over some of the popular newspapers in the area, namely Jutarnji, 24sata and vecernji: no major mentions. Primarily, I can only locate newsletters, minor mentions and acknowledgements of the club's existence, but nothing signifying notability/anything to suggest it passes GNG. I'll do a more in-depth look as soon as I can, hopefully within the next day or two. Regards, m.o.p 23:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

trying to create new entry for Geek Magazine

I got a "speedy deletion notice tag" for creating a profile for my company's magazine. I'm completely new to creating anything on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure of the offense and I had no intention to use it incorrectly.

We know there is already an entry for Geek Monthly from a few years back. We were just trying to make a new page for Geek Magazine, containing information on the publication, its owners, the editors, the types of stories we write, and the topics we cover.

Is there a proper way to go about this without being flagged as spammy? We want to abide by the rules to make sure everything is done correctly. Any help getting started would be appreciated.

Geekexchange (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Geekexchange

Hi... there are a few things you should be aware of (with helpful blue links):

1. Your username is a problem. Wikipedia's username policy does not allow for accounts to be named after businesses as it's considered promotional or implies shared use. It will likely be blocked from editing unless you request a change of username.
2. Since you work for the company, you are in a conflict of interest (COI). Wikipedia does not expressly forbid COI editors from contributing, but you must openly disclose your affiliation and be aware that other editors will subject your edits to a higher level of scrutiny. COI editors are instead advised to make suggestions for additions on the article's talk page, where other disconnected editors can review them and post them if satisfactory. Refer to the plain and simple conflict of interest guide for a more thorough discussion of best practices.
3. Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's core policies of notability, neutrality, and verifiability from reliable sources. COI editors may be tempted to write about how great their business is and use their own website as a source. The most reliable sources are intellectually independent ones who have written about you.

I kind of rushed through this because it's way past my bedtime here. I'll answer any other questions you might have later. Good luck! --Drm310 (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

DRM310 - No problem. I will take note of this and either delete the account or go about it another way within the rules. I had just figured it would be more accurate and useful to be created by the people who know the most about it rather than random people with no affiliation. Either way, I understand the reasoning and I will go about making a correction. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.253.69 (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Need Some Assistance

Dear Drm310

I'm hoping that you might be able to assist me once again. I would like to place the book cover of "The Devil in the Deal: 50 Secrets to Successful Dealmaking" on its article page. However, there is currently a template on that page that says:

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia. (February 2013) This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. (February 2013) A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (February 2013)"

Will this template prevent me from placing the book cover and not allow me to do any editing to the page?

I look forward to hearing from you

Thank you Kind regards (SusanEason (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC))

Hi Susan... no, that maintenance template will not prevent you from editing the page, including adding an image. As far as the image goes, you should log into Wikimedia Commons and upload your image there. Please note that in order for it to be used, you will have to release it under a Creative Commons license. That means that anyone else can re-use and adapt the image free of charge, even for commercial purposes, so long as they credit the original image to you (or more specifically, the image's creator). Copyrighted images are not permitted. --Drm310 (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Just thanking you for the welcome and the help references. To be honest, I find myself often perplexed by Wikipedia's editing and creation, so any help is surely appreciated. :-)

Tintaggon (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Once again, thank you so much

Dear Drm310

Once again thank you so much for your assistance. I really appreciate your guidance

Kind regards (SusanEason (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC))

Parenthetical Referencing

Thanks for your concern about parenthetical referencing. Still, for longer articles, in-line citations sometimes work better and the Marx article is getting long enough with enough references that it could make the transition. Take care. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Digital Dog

Hi. Thank you for picking up on the opening paragraph for this page. I hadn't noticed that someone had replaced the opening paragraph with something akin to an advert so I've reverted it to the text circa late 2010. Technohead1980 (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Creating a page for a feature film

Hi! I am one of the contributors for the Wiki article on the feature film "Boiling Pot". I have worked a lot today on removing everything from the article that is not found in a source. I have also taken out of a lot things that could make the article seem like an advertisement and made sure it was all simply factual. I am still in the process of making further changes in order to adhere to the guidelines. I'd like your input on how to further do this in order to make sure it's acceptable. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated! The film is currently finished filming and is in post-production status.

Oregon Medical Board

First, thank you for helping to keep Wikipedia clear of organizationa and advertising. My page OregonMedicalBoard was recently identitified as belonging to an organization and deleted. We are a State of Oregon agency and I was trying to get our information included so that the Wikipedia references to the State of Oregon and State of Oregon agencies could be updated and accurate. Can you advise me how to proceed? Thank you! Oregonmedicalboard (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sorry that your experience thus far hasn't been good, but I have three recommendations that will help you make positive contributions in the future (important links are in blue).

1. Request a change of username. Your username as it is now violates Wikipedia's username policy, which states that a username cannot represent a group, organization or business and cannot be used by more than one person. Please choose a new username that represents you as an individual.
2. Acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's core polices of notability, neutrality and verifiabilty by reliable, independent sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of topics that are of interest to the world at large, written in a neutral tone and can be verified by sources that are not connected to the subject.
3. Read the plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Because you represent the subject you wish to write about, you have a conflict of interest (COI). You are not prohibited from writing about a subject you are connected with, but you must openly disclose your affiliation. Your edits will also be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny to ensure that this policies are upheld. You might first try using the article for creation tool, where your submission will be reviewed by an experienced editor. They will either post it if there are no concerns, or provide feedback if it requires improvement.

I hope that these suggestions are helpful to you, and that you will be able to contribute constructively. Good luck. --Drm310 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Your advice

Hi there Thanks for your advice. As you suggested I have applied for a new user name that won't contravene with Wiki guidelines i hope! Please note I am not trying to promote AIB GB via Wiki but want to ensure all info on the net about AIB GB is factually and legally accurate and complies with financial regulation. I am finding it very difficult to do this without Wiki having an issue with it in some way! If you can advise further that would be great. Thanks again. Karin — Preceding unsigned comment added by AIB GB (talk • contribs) 09:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you request a new username? You left this comment under the account of "AIB GB", which was the problematic username. I see you put in a request to change it to "KARIN PANI"... are you logging in under this new username?

If you are employed by Allied Irish Bank, or have other professional or personal connections to it, then you have a conflict of interest and you should read Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide. This has comprehensive advice for people who wish to edit about subjects with which they are affiliated.

Wikipedia's Teahouse is a good place for new editors to become acclimated to how things work. A number of experienced editors can offer advice on how to get started while upholding Wikipedia's editorial policies.

Finally, please sign any posts on a talk page by typing four tilde characters (~~~~) at the very end of your comments. It will add your signature as well as the current date and time. That helps keep track of who said what, and when. Best of luck to you. --Drm310 (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Elijah Harper may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Eddie Brill

FYI User:Eddiecomic is continuing to edit his own page to remove sourced content. 216.112.252.10 (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I left another caution message for him. --Drm310 (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

P. J. Cowan (golfer) page - help!

Hi there, You edited my page P. J. Cowan (golfer) yesterday to fix the references. Last night I added more content and my references are not listed correctly. Would you be so kind as to have a look at the page and fix the references? I cannot figure out how to do it! Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. Best, Lauren P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.117.173.5 (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lauren. It appears you're not familiar with how to write references. I'll described the proper method.

• At the end of a statement, after punctuation marks, use a <ref></ref> tag pair. In between these tag, use a citation template such as {{cite web}}, {{cite news}} or {{cite book}} (among others). Here is an example of one I had previously added:

<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://www.newsday.com/sports/cowan-keeps-alive-bid-to-make-open-1.266941
|title = Cowan Keeps Alive Bid to Make Open
|last = Williams
|first = Jeff
|work = [[Newsday]]
|date = 2002-05-15
|accessdate = 2013-05-29}}</ref>

• You'll notice that the above example will want you to specify not just the URL of the reference, but also the page title, the author's name (if known), the name of the work (website, newspaper), the published date of the story, and the date you accessed it. These are particularly useful because sometimes citation URLs become broken over time, but automated "bots" on Wikipedia can find archived copies of the reference.
• Inside the References section, there should be nothing but this tag:

{{reflist}}

• The net effect will generate the numbered references beside the statements, and the full list in the References section.

You can read a lengthier description of how to create references at Help:Footnotes. It's probably also worth your while to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, to ensure that the sources you use are considered reliable.

I noticed that you were not logged in when you left this comment, so I would advise you to do so in the future. That way you can be properly identified as the editor. Also, please sign any posts on a talk page (but not an article page) by typing four tilde characters (~~~~) at the end of your comment. Signing posts helps to identify who said what, and when.

I hope this has helped. Good luck. --Drm310 (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert Stuart Nathan

Drm310, could you take a look at the restructuring, the change in tone, and the additional citations and determine if the tags at the top are still accurate/required? Thank you. RN RSN813 (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks a lot better now... so much so that I've removed the maintenance tags from the top.

I've started doing a few more fixups. I've started rewriting the citations using templates like {{cite web}} and {{cite journal}}. There are other useful ones that I might use too, like {{cite news}} and {{cite book}}. The benefit of using these are:

1. It standardizes the formatting in the Footnotes section below.
2. If a link becomes broken, automated scripts (also known as "bots") can sometimes find archived copies elsewhere, like the Internet Archive. The bots will insert an archive URL, saving the citation from being broken.

I'll also fix a minor item with the placement of punctuation marks around references (WP:REFPUNC), but that's just cosmetic.

I know it's been a rough start for you here, but I commend your efforts and I'm convinced that you're editing in good faith. I hope you haven't been discouraged from contributing in the future. I'm sure you have a wealth of knowledge and experience that could benefit a lot of other articles on Wikipedia. --Drm310 (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time not only to read the newly edited version but also for your substantial time and effort to format properly the references. The question of tone -- in both the writing of entries and in editing -- is hard to judge and my reading "ear" may well have heard a tone from the original editor that wasn't there. Many thanks again for your help in that department as well. RSN813 (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)