User talk:Jeraphine Gryphon/Archive 4

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Waldorf
If you don't know User:Pete K's history, it might be worth familiarizing yourself with it. He bombarded the article with multiple edits, was abusive, refused to work with anyone, cited the same sources, and came back repeatedly after being banned. There's an old rule: if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

The last several times I claimed to recognize the footprint, checkusers confirmed the accounts as sockpuppets. See,. See a further extensive history at I will prepare a Sockpuppet case, but this will take some time. HGilbert (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah I'm just gonna wait for that proof. Or an example of the current "sock" being disruptive/making bad edits. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm sorry that you don't like my edits, User:Hgilbert. It doesn't make me a sock puppet. I'm gonna go on to other projects until this is resolved, and I suggest you do the same. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 05:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sworn In (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hardcore. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if this works but perhaps I know these people. Jesse Horn is my brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocHammer (talk • contribs) 09:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well then here's some reading material for you: No original research and Conflict of interest. Also your edits to Davey Havok, at least, were just plain wrong. His middle name is Paden, and it has references. People who change it to "Anthony" or "Lee" or whatever never provide references. This is why verifiability matters and "I know so from personal experience" is not a good source. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks :-)

FlameLightFleeNight (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC) 

Sig
— Pikachu2568   pika! sand  moves  @ 09:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Is mine better? — Pikachu2568   pika! sand  moves  @ 09:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's better than originally. But it's possible some people would say that the black background makes it too eye-catching on talk pages. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

ArcangelLaMarivilla
Yeah I wanted to report him to the ANI also but since I already knew the response be "user has not been warned enough" I also requested a page protection on start/end. Wgolf (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Your response on the Phoenix Global Talk page was excellent. I still believe the article is really not very good. The individuals named have certainly gained some notoriety, and seem to fall within WP:NOTE, but as the subject of the article is the company itself, I don't believe it it titled or structured correctly. A previous article on Michael Featherstone by the same author was deleted. I've sent a note here to the Admin that nuked it to ask for additional eyes. 79616gr (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We might not want to create articles for Featherstone or others if most of the article's content are gonna be about legal issues. According to WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."
 * And WP:BLPCRIME: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured."
 * And the above policies apply to all articles, including those that aren't biographies, like Phoenix Global, so... But I'm not really an expert when it comes to this stuff, i.e. ongoing crime investigations vs. the BLP policy, but people at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard may know better. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It would be worth adding the article to their Noticeboard. 79616gr (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand your removal of my account, but...
I have already been informed about the problem of writing a personal account such as mine, and have done so, by a friend of mine who has mentioned how "sensitive" you guys are to any real edits, who claims authority but cannot be cited by any standing research. Does it help that I am writing a book that includes the information I have written for this article, but has been swiftly removed by you? I know you will never flex your policies, but if you have indeed read what I wrote, you can see with ease that I am very much talking the truth, in regards to a strong understanding of the Kundalini, only possible by someone who has firsthand experience with this "power". In any case, my main motive is to generate enough edits, so that I can begin writing on my own Wikipedia article on my sister's music band, and the details of their particulars, in an effort of bringing exposure and attention to them, for which the entry will serve as advertisement. My question now, is how I can do that as quickly as I want? How many article edits must I do, in order to have a chance of beginning an entirely new article for my own purposes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminari (talk • contribs)


 * Look, I don't make the rules here so don't get mad at me. You really need to look at this: WP:ADVOCACY: "Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy." Also be aware that accounts can get blocked simply for being "promotion-only accounts", because advertising is simply prohibited here.
 * Your addition to Kundalini was just pure original research and we don't allow that here either. It doesn't matter how big of an expert you think you are, the content you added was completely unsourced and written in a very un-encyclopedic tone. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Jeraphine, I don't think he is mad at you but is just new to Wikipedia and the rules. Thank you for giving him the many guidelines to editing on Wikipedia. Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi dude
Hi jeraphine, Thank you for putting some messages for me. In fact I need help. Help me I need to create a page about my company with the field of oil and gas. The name is : ESPROENKO INTERNATIONAL. I did it before even I upload some picture in wiki file uploader and use it to complete my article every time I was just viewing by show preview to check last changes but suddenly all my picture gone. I fear to create article and wiki remove that. My company forced me to create one. our website is : ESPROENKO INTERNATIONAL Cyber Lynx 11:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Thank you dude I am wainting for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyboy110 (talk • contribs)


 * You could start writing the article at the title Draft:Esproenko International. The "Draft:" in the beginning means that it is in "draftspace" and it's not a real article yet, so we will give you more time and freedom to work on that draft without it getting deleted quickly. And when you think it's ready then you can ask others for advice and if it really is ready then it can be moved into articlespace (like all the other proper articles).
 * You really need to read this page though, it's very important if you're editing on behalf of your company: Conflict of interest. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok
Hey, I appreciate your help, I understand your removal so no hard feelings :D I only attempted to edit because MD is a personal subject but anyway I'm really interested in literature ect, and Wikipedia is a lot les flexible than I imagined which makes sense now that I go through everything. Any tips? ObscurityLover (talk)
 * I don't know how to answer that, there are a LOT of tips we might offer to a new editor but I don't want to bore you with endless policy pages. But! Just this week I went to my local library and took a couple of books just for the main purpose of possibly using them as sources and adding new information to Wikipedia. Real published books are very often what we call "reliable sources" here and give solid and useful information (the non-fiction books, I mean). And when your library has it in their collection then clearly they thought it was a worthwhile book to have.
 * Also you can stop by the Teahouse whenever you like. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well Thank you for your advice, I'll do what you said. Have a nice day. ObscurityLover (talk)

Improving article
Hi Jeraphine. Thanks for your edit at David Laventhol, which I created. Given my closeness to the subject (clearly declared on talk, user and COIN pages) it's obviously proper that the article gets extra scrutiny for neutrality, verifiability etc. It has a COI tag but no discussion on the talk page suggesting anything in particular is wrong; your own comment suggested the COI tag could be removed. I certainly wouldn't feel right doing that myself. What's the proper process? Thanks in advance for any suggestions on improving the article. Jonathan Laventhol (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I could have and could remove it myself but I got the impression that you were possibly still working on it, so it would probably be a better idea to let you finish any major edits that you still had planned. If you feel you're more-or-less done then you can let me know and I'll look over it again and remove the tag. Of course you can still edit the article after that, but the point is that you yourself just may not notice at all if an edit of yours is somehow too biased, so someone else needs to check it. (I think you've already read WP:COI so I'm not going to quote it here.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I am basically done with the article and don't plan anything unless I can find some more verifiable sources for other events.  So your review would be most welcome.  Thanks again. Jonathan Laventhol (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, I'll get right on that. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for moving my comment - I'd had the page open for a bit so didn't realize that you'd already created a section, when I hit New Section. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Definition of reliable sources
Hi, I'm new to this but curious as to the definition of a reliable source. I recently was editing the [Blood Moons Prophecy] page and my edits were removed because "they are not reliable resources". Is there protocol as to how to handle a disagreement over certain edits?

Thanks! Ayalkell (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Some reading for you:
 * * Identifying reliable sources
 * * Dispute resolution
 * (If you still have questions after that or can't seem to find a specific answer for your questions, feel free to message me again (and if you'd rather ask someone else then there's always the Teahouse).) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks!
 * I think I will attempt to start a discussion on the page's talk page as suggested in Dispute resolution. What I don't understand is how to engage the user who actually removed my edits if it was just an IP. How many people actually pay attention to Page talk pages? Ayalkell (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, people typically see additions to talk pages on their watchlist. Also if you make an edit that has been explained on the talk page then you can say in your edit summary something like "edited XYZ, see talk page". Then other editors are required to go and respond on the talk page, instead of ignoring it and changing/reverting your edit. Communication is required. With IPs you can just leave a message on their talk page, like with other editors. Usually it's best to discuss an article on it's own talk page (instead of user talk pages), but you can leave notes for users saying you're waiting for their feedback on talk page X.
 * I assume the source you're talking about is Breaking Israel News. It doesn't look like a reliable source to me, but it may depend on what you use it for. You can ask for other editors' opinions/help about the use of that source here: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hermeticism
Hello, Jeraphine! I see you have edited Hermeticism. Yesterday I read the article and made some minor copy-edits. I had a few questions, posted them on an editor's page, received good answers, then had another question, so I posted it on the talk page of another editor, Vsmith, who has helped me a lot in the past. You might like to read my question and perhaps you can help answer it. See User talk:Vsmith. CorinneSD (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would love to be of help but I read your questions and I have no clue about those things. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

About the edit on body dysmorphic disorder..
Haha.. I was sharing the article with my friend and edited it for shit and giggles. I wasn't being disrespectful. In fact I have the disorder! I think it's very courteous of you to inform me that you undid it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.133.205.160 (talk • contribs)
 * Just please don't do anything like that again, it's not funny for people who have to read that or clean it up after you. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

My recent contribution was marked as "possible spam"
Hey there, I am really new to Wiki by means of editing, but I am an experienced reader for years now. The thing is that I really like the topic I tried to edit, but got my post removed. I really want to contribute as I feel that kind of need, and I would like to ask if it is possible to know the reason for my post being market that way. I will do my best to fix it and note my mistakes. So hopefully you could chat me with recommendations. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenSparrow (talk • contribs) 14:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , it seemed like it was possible that the edit was made to post a link to sicktattoodesign.com (for the purpose of advertising it, that would be "spam"). That website is not a reliable source so we should not link to it. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that information, but then I have another question: what does make a site reliable source? And how should it be posted to avoid such problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenSparrow (talk • contribs) 15:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's the link again: Identifying reliable sources. I think that the information about tattoos in that article is just not necessary, a lot of things can be made into tattoos. So we should only add that information if some reliable source talks about it, because that shows that that information is somehow mention-worthy. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome

 * Thanks! — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

untitled
Hey Jeraphine,

I had no idea you were a follower of occult and paranormal subjects. Are you generally pro, con, or healthfully skeptical? Are religion and spirituality subjects that fall under your interest as well?

Thanks, Soulgazer (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, religion and spirituality are just such broad concepts that I can't claim to be interested or knowledgeable in all of it. I'm a proper skeptic (or, an active skeptic, I don't just sit and claim that I don't believe in anything); I'm interested in a lot of the same things they (skeptics) are and share their views. But I try to be open-minded and try some things out for myself (like, certain spiritual beliefs or activities) to see what happens. And then I just have this plain creative interest in all of the weird/paranormal stuff, I don't always approach it with a skeptical mindset, sometimes it's more like, "omg, this is awesome" rather than "omg, this is obvious bullshit". — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. Good luck with your experiments and fancies :) —Soulgazer (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, can you do me a little favor and grant me some approval on the Mysticism article? —Soulgazer (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't need it, just be bold. :p That article was not in my watchlist though, but it is now. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Osho's contribution to meditation
Hi

With ref to your edit stating 'undue weight on one guru', kindly note that Osho's contribution to the field of meditation is immense.

He has over 500 book titles related to meditation and its practice. He also developed various active and passive meditation techniques and millions are practicing them on a daily basis.

Please check www.osho.com for details. If my edit feels an undue weight then help to put it as a proper weight.

Regards

Dilara.adim

Dilara.adim (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I know that he's famous and his people are very good at marketing, and I don't doubt that he has influenced a lot of people. However I think the Meditation article should not have a separate section for any particular guru or writer. Besides just being undue weight, it also comes across as being promotional. It's already a long article and it could (maybe even should) be longer, as there is a lot to say about this topic. Osho is not the most important figure in meditation. If you want to assert his importance, you will need to use a secondary and independent source, i.e. not a book published by Osho.
 * We could take this discussion to the article's talk page, so other people can see it too, if you want to talk about what material about Osho we can add to the article and in which section it should be added. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not the question about him being famous and marketable or having influenced people. The point is if it makes the article on meditation richer… There are various names mentioned in the article with ref to their books or publications.. for eg., Claudio Naranjo!!! The authority of Buddhism is derived from Gautam Buddha and has been included as such… Osho has commented on almost all religions mentioned in the article… How does it become promotional? It is a simple fact that new meditations have come into the world and should be included in the article…

The readers have the right to know the modern developments in the field of meditation…

We can take the discussion on the articles talk page… Kindly do it…

dilara,adim Dilara.adim (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Your feedback is welcome
Hey, your feedback is welcome here: Talk:Michael Kors (brand), whether the brand should have its own article, separate from the designer. Tinton5 (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

My Recent edit Balija
Hi Jeraphine, we had seeking from the census of 1901 as our varna status is Ksthatriya but u r not accepting my proofs, may I know what type of proof you will accept and why you are not accepting edgar thurston sources as its British Raj period.

Can u give me a clear picture.

Regards,

Karthick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karthigemini (talk • contribs) 10:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edits because you had replaced content that was well-written and had sources, with your text that was very poorly written and (at least partially) based on original research. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Mas Rodin
Thanks. We've cleaned up the links, Favonian blocked. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Imago Sports Management and Media Consultancy
Dear Jeraphine,

This agency has the legal documents by the government of the people's republic of Bangladesh. I have all the legal papers, this agency type is only image consultancy for athlets. I am new user of wiki, please help to add topic in this page.

Best, Tamzidul Islam Imago — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamzidul.islam (talk • contribs) 18:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

nice work
just saw this. nice work! Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear.  Dwpaul  Talk   00:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was waiting for Zxcv9 to dig himself even deeper before I dragged him to ANI over his behavior, but it looks like I won't have to do that now, that's great. I had a feeling he was the same person as Tabcapslock and Wfmu, but the actual extent of his socking was pretty surprising. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty amazing volume of socks. 79616gr (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if it's possible those accounts belonged to several persons in a single household or office(!), but I don't know how exactly the checkuser process works. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly, I think it works on IP addresses. Glad this situation is now resolved. 79616gr (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello
Don't see my revert of your edit on Baloch people as any form or shape of criticism of what you did there, because there was no criticism intended, you did exactly what you normally should do when there's an edit request. Years of reverting people on articles relating to Pakistan, India, Afghanistan etc, both IPs and registered users, have however taught me to double-check everything, because there's usually a more than 50% chance that the editor is trying to add something that is either not supported at all by the reference given (i.e. a fake reference), only supported in part by the reference, a simple misunderstanding of what the source actually says (because of lacking language skills) or a deliberate misinterpretation of what the source says. So I always check the sources. Cheers, Thomas.W talk 19:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC) (Feel free to remove this when you've read it...)
 * Yeah, actually I really appreciate that, and I know what you mean. The article List of Baloch tribes for example caused me so much headache I had to remove it from my watchlist out of pure frustration. I could never tell whether the IP edits were made by someone who actually knows what they're doing or not, and the topic itself is hard to google and completely out of my expertise area. ... (Maybe that was not 100% related but I'm going to publish this anyway...) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

skeptik.ee
Hey Jeraphine, Thanks for adding MTÜ Eesti Skeptik to the List of skeptical organizations. Did you read my answer to you about skeptik.ee? Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I did, but I realized I don't really want to work on the article right now. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok that's fine, hope to see you another time then, I'll be happy to help. :) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome
Hello Gryphon,

Thanks for the welcome message! I didn't expect too much to happen for my first week so its nice to see a kind message. I have been reading over the guidelines and such, and I'm getting the hang of just making small edits for now. I can't count the number of times Wikipedia has helped me out, so I hope I'm at least helping more than hurting. I hope I can stay in this community long-term myself and can make someone's life easier.

Panther5324 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You should find some WikiProjects that you feel you might be interested in! If you don't dare to join them yet then watchlisting their talk page/discussion board would be a good idea, just in case someone posts there. (I think people should use WikiProjects more...) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a ton!
I just wanted to say thank you for the help you give on the appeal to authority page! I can be something of a WP:WikiDragon sometimes and unintentionally make a mess out of pages when I add things - thank you so much for the edits! Perfect Orange Sphere (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomophobia
I'm curious what you meant by the 'unclear citation style' tag on the nomophobia article - the article uses normal inline citations. Is there something I'm missing here? Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - please explain. J.R. Council (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * — With these edits, Anette added a lot of new content to the article, including things like this: [3]
 * This is not how we mark references around here, ever. One big problem with that is that the References list is automatic, and if someone later adds a new reference in the article, then all of the numbers in the Reflist will change. And then all of the manually added inline ref numbers will be wrong.
 * I wasn't going to fix it myself since I'm not sure which references the numbers really refer to. I think Annette knows best how to make sense of the references since she wrote the stuff.
 * The maintenance tag I added provides links to Help:Footnotes and Citing sources, but I understand if those pages are too general. I think the part you need is this: Help:Footnotes. This is the method we use here, when a reference is used more than once. That reference is given a short codename (it can be whatever you want it to be since it will only show up in the code source of the article, but it's best to make it something logical) so it will always point to the same reference and it will not depend on the number of references in the reflist. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The manually added numbers can also turn useless if text with refs is moved from one part of the article to another (the order of references will change). Which needs to be done right now since the article's structure is pretty bad. The original lead section now seems to be the second paragraph in the "Research evidence" section. And I don't want to go in right now to make changes because I don't want to mess up the order of references. Please get the refs fixed as soon as possible. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I will make sure to fix the citations today! Annetteruiz 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annetteruiz (talk • contribs)


 * If there's anything confusing about the code, feel free to ask me for help. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a student project and they've been trying very hard to do a good job. I think they're doing well, having never edited Wikipedia before this semester. Thanks so much for the good advice and offer of help. J.R. Council (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, it's completely understandable if people don't know how the referencing codes work on Wikipedia specifically. I hope I didn't sound too stern. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe a bit at first, but the offer of help softened it. J.R. Council (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As I said, I couldn't figure out what was wrong before the references looked fine. Never occurred to me that someone would add refs like that. Even after 11 years here you can still learn something new. :) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)