Talk:Organic mineral

Citation format
Per WP:CITEVAR I know I should have left this alone. But it is a new article, and I believe SFN formatting is better for the books at least. And better for the readers. I was WP:Bold. Revert it if it offends you. Cheers. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 23:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have read this before commenting on your page. It doesn't offend me, but I'm not sure it's likely to be needed, so I'd prefer to revert (without any prejudice against reinstating it if the article grows a lot). But I appreciate the effort you're putting into this article. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And thank you for the QPQ. I did look at the articles with a mind to reviewing one, but none are remotely near to my areas of interest. I do have a couple of unused QPQ's in my other identity, but wasn't sure if people would accept them for this identity. I'll pay it forward as you have done. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I defer to your professional judgment. Especially on WP:CITEVAR, which gives you precedence (I still think that WP:SFN works better. But anything I write in Wikipedia is (IMO) a suggestion. More than one way to skin a cat.
 * The article is better when we collaborate. Glad that you found some of my edits helpful.
 * Pay it forward is great. Best regards. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 01:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)