User talk:Fifieldm

Original research
Hi Fifieldm, its probably best not to label any edits you make with a summary that says anything about your 'original research' as Wikipedia has a policy on that, which could lead to unnecessary reversions and deletions. Your changes to Sedimentary budget seem all to the good, well supported by references, so I don't personally see any problems with it (although I'm no expert in this area). You might also want to look at using the various 'cite' templates for your references, such as the 'cite journal' one that I used to convert the Kirk 1991 reference - also worth adding links to either abstracts or full content (where available) so that others can look further in to the subject. Another minor thing, no need to use both the 'references' and 'reflist' templates in the References section, 'reflist' is preferred because long lists take up less space. Anyway, thanks for turning a stub into a decent article. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)