User talk:Berland Information & User talk:Berland Links at HealthHaven.com

Welcome!

Hello, Berland, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kriging

Hello!

I've originally visited the kriging page several months ago, looking for useful information (Specifically, I wanted to implement kriging in a Fortran program to interpolate unordered elevation data). The page struck me as being chaotic and going off at a tangent; little specific information on the kriging technique was provided, but there was a lot of vituperative wrangling against geostatistics.

I complained on the talk page and waited a long time for the article to improve. I revisited the article periodically, read the talk page and related user talk pages closely (JanWMerks and Merksmatrix in particular), and came to the conclusion that the reason the article is so wretched is because it is under continuous attack by a father-and-son team of cranks, who disrupt any constructive work with their own unsubstantiated agenda.

In order to give bona-fide editors like you more breathing space, I recommend that this matter be given due process under Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Specifically, I propose that a request for help be filed under AMA Requests for Assistance, as a first step. Perhaps the Advocate will be able to guide us in the steps that need to be taken to stop the disruptive behavior. My ultimate goal is Article probation. I am fed up with the cranks. Aren't you?

Please let me know what you think at my talk page. I sent this message to Hike395, Michael Hardy, Vsmith, SCmurky, Antro5, Nvj and Berland, as these names appear a number of times in the discussions. Freederick 16:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Math

Thanks for all the good work you are doing to math related articles. I noticed when you cleaned up Cardinal spline, it looks much better now. HowIBecameCivil 22:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tate Modern

I thought I should mention that this edit by the anon was half right whether by luck or judgement. He removed one accent. I've looked up the name: both need to be removed (which I've now done). Tyrenius 21:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I just saw that the edit made the link red, that did nok look good. --Berland 05:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. The Wikipedia article on him includes the accents (icelandic), and the fact that some web references omits the accents (probably because they do not know how to type them) should be ignored by wikipedia. Berland 07:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Mean

MeanieFace you so mean you meanieface —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maylene777 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Digerronden

You put up unreferenced and context-tags on Digerronden. I removed the unreferenced-tag, as all facts in it are referenced. But do you think it needs further context (I have made some changes)? --Berland 09:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi berland, the page don't cite any thing from where you took the info. you need to cite it properly before removing the tag. create the reference column and mention the source. if you don't know how to cite source then do take a look at the following link-

WP:CITE. One more thing don't remove tags until you are sure. you might get blocked. Anyway may i help you. don't hesitate in asking any of your query. though my english is sick but i'll try my best to answer you. Sushant gupta 09:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

All the info on the page is deducable from the Topographic map that is mentioned in the Infobox, so stating that the article does not cite its sources is erroneous, that is why I simply removed the tag (but I won't do it the next time). But of course, this reference could be more explicitly stated. But I have never seen a mountain where the topo map has been mentioned in the References section (though I sometimes write the primary factor with such a reference, as it is sometimes not deducable from a single topo map). If you could show me an example of how to reference all the info in the infobox with a map reference, I would like to see how it should be properly done. --Berland 11:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

hello berland, you mean to say

this is sufficient for citation. See you need not worry about it. you tell me from where you took the content and i'll mention the source for you. when i was new here i was also confused regarding citation. Sushant gupta 11:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly, I am talking about the topographic map in the infobox, which refers to the official topographic map series of Norway, M711. This map, "1718 I Rondane" is the reference for all the information in the article. So the article is not unreferenced, but we could write the reference in another way, I am open to suggestions. Also, I wonder if you still need more context, and what context, and I can try to improve. --Berland 14:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Umhhh... I think this could help you out. If you wish to ask anything then kindly don't hesitate. Cheers, Sushant gupta 12:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have stated a couple of times that the article is referenced, that implies that I disagree with the unreferenced-tag. If you still thinks it should be there, I would like you to say what could be done. Also I disagree with the context-tag, if you thinks it still should be there, I would like to say what can be improved. If not, I prefer removing both tags. --Berland 13:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

the page do not have a proper starting. it is not citing source like other articles. i am not tagging the page for fun. there is reason why i have tagged the page. if you have any query then i think you should discuss this matter with any admin. May be they could help you out. because i am not able to clarify your doubts. okay! take a look at this page. See how the referencing is done. And don't remove the tags until you are sure. Sushant gupta 11:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

i have removed the context tag since it was classed stub. thanks Sushant gupta 11:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

i have also removed unreferenced tag and placed a link to List of peaks in Norway over 2000 meters. there the info regarding the page is referenced. Sushant gupta 11:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like you agreed with me in the end after all, that is good. But I would like to stress that I regard the link to List of peaks in Norway over 2000 meters to be an unsufficient reference, though you apparently ranked it above the topographic map reference, which I do not understand your reason for. But the article seems fine now, now it is time to add more content. --Berland 21:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedies

I am not the creator of the article on that boy scout camp, so it would seem i can remove the tag, judging from the wording on the template "if this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. " ? Just clarifying--the article is not exactly one of my key concerns. DGG 02:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, did not check the page history properly. Reverted back to your version. --Berland 06:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trondheim

Hi Berland,

sorry you felt you had to remove the link I made. You are right, the website is maintained by me, but it is also the best resource on the net in English for Pilgrims who want to walk Olav's Way, and will soon be the only site that has a full photographic record of the route (when I have finished it). Its not a profit making site in any way, I don't link to Amazon Books or anything. I just want to make it easier for potential pilgrims to find the site. I also plan to add links to the Norwegian Churches Pilgrim pages, and the Confraternity of Saint James in Norway, although the English language resources on these sites are very limited. I hope you also noticed the information I added about the pilgrim route in general.

I was also going to create a page today on Wikipedia entitled Saint Olav's Way entirely about the pilgrim route, (I can't believe it doesnt have a page already) but I won't if you think people will only take it down thinking I have a vested interest. Perhaps you would like to create this page if you have an interest in Trondheim? Information about this route is very scarce, my partner and I had very little info to go on with regards to what to take etc when we were planning our trip.

It would have been easy for me to create a new login to add the link, but I think its better to be honest in these things!

Corwen 17:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that an article on the pilgrim route is appropriate on Wikipedia, I would like to encourage you to start that article. Please keep in mind that the issue I raised concerned External links only. --Berland 17:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK I'll create the page when I have some time, and I'll put a link to my site on the talk page and see if anyone feels its appropriate so as not to break the conflict of interest rule. I agree that an Olav's Way page would be a more appropriate place for the link than the Trondheim page. Cheers!

Corwen 18:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Duffing equation; Ormtjernkampen National Park; Randsfjorden; Norwegian Mountain Touring Association; Ballangen; Etnedal; Separatrix (dynamical systems); Numerical diffusion; Saltfjellet-Svartisen National Park; Lanczos resampling; Numerical partial differential equations; Målselv; Rago National Park; Birkhoff interpolation; Sunnmøre; Gutulia National Park; Skånland; Lyngen; Røros

Cleanup: Galerkin method; Parametric resonance; Henrik Wergeland
Merge: Kristiania; Water content; Soil moisture
Add Sources: Ranked list of Norwegian counties; List of glaciers; Vadose zone
Wikify: Flow measurement; Sigrid Undset; Surface energy
Expand: American cordillera; Poisson's equation; Popocatépetl

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On MoS:Bold

Yes, I know that the MoS discourages bold typeface. But the usage of bold type in Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions is rather specialized. The first time a new technical term is used, it should (usually) be bold. Of course, it's not a strict rule, but it is one which is widely practiced and accepted on WP:M. Regards, Silly rabbit 02:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving a message. The approved use of bold by Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions was new to me, I find it really strange that this is not mentioned in the supposedly exhaustive list in WP:MOSBOLD#Boldface. Berland 18:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Diffusion.en.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Diffusion.en.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Diffusion.en.jpg fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Image description page for image on the Commons

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Diffusion.en.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article Review

Rondane National Park has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --RelHistBuff 16:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for the delayed response

I've responded to your concerns at User talk:Mets501#Out of curiosity... —METS501 (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gu weidong

I removed your prod...once a prod has been removed, it's consider a contested deletion, and the prod shouldn't be re-added, see WP:PROD for details. The article should go to AfD instead, and as you can see, I have done so. Feel free to weigh in. --UsaSatsui 00:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geobox 2

Would you please add your comments here: Template talk:Geobox#Issues? There's one concerning the whitespacing as well. – Caroig (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summary

Currently I know of know species of Hibolites from the Cenomanian (though it may be a junior synonym of an accepted species). The youngest species I know of are Valangian-Hautervian in age. However, I am not a ammonite expert, but I would recommend that if you have a references showing the genus did continue onto the Cenomanian you create a page for the genus and place the pertinant references upon it. In addition, I'm not particularly enamored by the 'Surving from the Bajocian' title. It suggests the genus originated within the epoch, but again I can cannot find any evidence for that either. But once more I must stress I am not an expert with this group. I hope this explains. Mark t young 21:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elastic Moduli

Concerning your edits of Poisson's ratio, Shear modulus, and Bulk modulus, I think its good to have a separate section showing how that particular modulus relates to other moduli, even though it is duplicated in Elastic modulus. Also, I think the very useful table in the Elastic modulus article should default to showing, so that a single click is required to bring it up, rather than two and I have changed it accordingly. I will revert the edits to the individual moduli articles, unless you have strong objections? PAR (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need for replicating the formulas, at least not when the formulas in the table are initially visible. I do however see that fact that all the elastic moduli are connected in this way is not clearly conveyed having it only mentioned in the table below. You are of course welcome to improve on this. Maybe Talk:Elastic modulus is the proper place to discuss this (you may copy this over there if you don't mind). You may also discuss the default visibility of the table at Template talk:Elastic moduli, where there are some thoughts already. --Berland (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Template:Elastic moduli

Very nice!

[edit] Protected area infobox template

I am curious what change occurs to the way the infobox displays by the edit you did here. I'm not very astute with template work, and can't see how the difference in how the infobox renders. Not trying to badger, just was seeking some feedback. Thanks.--MONGO 16:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at the top right of the page (outside the infobox), now the coordinates also display there. See also Template talk:Infobox Protected_area#display=inline,title in coord template. --Berland (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to ask that same question again at the protected areas project page? I don't know how many people have the template itself watchlisted. While I do see you asked and waited a long time and no one answered you, I would prefer to not have the coordinates at the top of articles since they already appear in the infoboxes. It's not that big a deal to me one way or the other, but it seems a little redundant. I think you'll get more feedback if you ask on the project talkpage.--MONGO 04:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sjimeno

I am a Visual.Net developper. I have free code source in my site (http://personales.ya.com/sjimeno) to draw Hermite, Cardinal, Kochanek-Bartels, Bezier, B-Splines(Berstein), B-Splines(de Boor), NURBS and Lagrange Splines. I want to share this code and to put links in these articles. This is the first time that Visual.NET source code about splines is published. I wanted to do some similar at Stefan Beck's link in B-Splines article.

Greetings. Santiago Jimeno —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjimeno (talk • contribs) 19:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, again welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you'll find it worthy to stay here. I advise you to put your proposed link on the talk page and suggest someone to include it if they find it worthy of inclusion by WP:External links. Remember that I am just your peer, that is just another editor. I don't get to say the final word. It would help if your link could go directly to the relevant C#-source for Hermite interpolation viewable in a web browser. Like it is now, one has to find Splines in your menu, and also download a zip-file, extract it, and then view it. This is quite cumbersome and definitely makes it harder for editors to accept the link to be present. Also, bear in mind that I do not see this link as a long-term thing if someone adds it. External links to implementations in every possible programming language is not what Wikipedia is about. --Berland (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typo redirect RPn

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on RPn, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because RPn is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting RPn, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I declined this deletion - but I think RPn would be much more effective as a redirect to RPN, since Rpn and rpn both point there as well. I've added RPⁿ as a disambiguation term, with a link back to Real projective space. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Euler–Maclaurin formula

I've started the work of fixing the redirects that needed to get done as a result of your punctuation correction in the title Euler–Maclaurin formula. There are no longer any double redirects. The links with hyphens rather than ndashes could be considered "unprintable" and accordingly replaced with ndashes. In some cases, that creates a need for new redirect pages, and I think I've done all of those. If you click on "what links here", you'll be able to see what work still needs to get done. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Berland (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hallingskarvet National Park

Hi, am new here and added some information to this article and a photo. Is it still a stub now? Was it added correctly? Idril Anwamane (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

After reading Wikipedia:Stub, I found it no longer to be a stub. Thank you for the contributions. I have now removed the stub-templates. --Berland (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That is good news. Thank you! Idril Anwamane (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bicubic interpolation

I reverted some of the image edits you did to Bicubic interpolation. Please do not overwrite the images on commons where the source code producing the images have been carefully inserted (also take care not to break any license regulations). If you want to improve on the images, it is better to use new image names, and please insert documentation that makes the images reproducible. Anyway, very good to see people wanting to improve the interpolation pages! Also note the page on Multivariate interpolation, where the Lanczos image example you gave probably fits in (but I would like to have the procedure for generating the image documented). --Berland (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll keep the suggestions in mind next time I make edits. My images were all generated with "the Gimp" except the Lanczos which I wrote a special program myself to do it.. I would suggest changing the images on the bicubic page because imo they are confusing. They show an interpolation going from red to blue that interpolates to green in the middle. I understand that Matlab uses colors (not as an actual color) but as the height of the function, so this makes sense for Matlab type of applications, but if you considered the nearest example as an image, there is no way that interpolating between red and blue should give you any green hue. Unless you don't agree, I would suggest putting my images as an example. They were done with a simple 4-pixel with random color choices and scaled with the gimp. I would also follow your suggestion to remove everything that does not relate to bicubic and move that over to multivariate. I think that the sampling/interpolation articles are a mess in general because they overlap each other a lot. We should split them into sampling algorithms vs interpolation algorithms. Note: We have bilinear filter and we have bilinear interpolation. This should all be in sampling imo. Let me know what you think so I can make appropriate changes. Ti chris (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Being a mathematician, I don't fint the colour range confusing, as I do not interpret the colours that way, they are only an arbitrary scale. But I now see it might confuse others. This should be a matter of choosing a different colour scheme by a single command or so in Matlab, and then the images may be regenerated using the supplied code. But keep in mind that I would like to keep the pages on "interpolation" focused on mathematics, not the application in image processing. This means that mathematical details in the figures and so on are important, and it means that images created in the gimp should be treated with care unless one has a full mathematical understanding of what gimp does to the images. --Berland (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do about being a mathematician or not (I'm one myself). Moreover, you're using a scale that is not defined to the reader. I could easily generate the same images by using a color scale that is logarithmic and the output would confuse everyone even though the interpolation would technically be correct and linear. Either way, you need to define the color ramp for the image to make any proper sense. If you really want to make this more of a mathematical-bound image, I would suggest rendering the image in 3D. Then the colors themselves would not pose any confusion and anyone can figure out that you're interpolating values. When you interpolate colors, you are essentially entering more of an image processing field. I think that your proposal on re-doing the images by redefining the color ramp is quite acceptable. Although I would personally rather plot the images in 3D and remove any image processing bit. I don't have matlab myself, you would have to redo theses images yourself. Your point about the Gimp's unknown implementation are quit valid. However from experience, they are correct for image processing purposes.

(We don't need to copy this discussion over and over between our talk pages as long as we watch each others pages. I will stick to this place from now on). I agree that a colour scale could be inserted. I had a go at this when I made the images but thought it was of less importance, but I can agree with you. However I don't want these figures in 3D, because then you will hide some details (they will be obstructed by other parts of the surface. I do want the patterns that I see in the current figure to be clearly visible in order to distuingish the interpolation methods, and they will be less visible if the color scale is limited to being a gradient between two colour points, thus my conclusion, the best thing will be to insert a colour bar indicating the scale in the image. I can see if I can get this done in near future. --Berland (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That's perfectly acceptable to me. Looking forward to it :) Thanks for understanding.Ti chris (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Now the colour bar has been added to the three images. Thanks for the input. --Berland (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bathtub Effect

I have a question for you. It probably has nothing to with what you have written, but I am willing to take a shot. I would like to know if you know, if there is a name to the effect, of when you put a kid in a bathtub and moves back and forth to make waves in a bathtub? If there is I would like to apply this to Earthquake articles, as to what happens to water in swimming pools during large earthquakes. During the 1992 Landers earthquake I watched as half of the water in our 9' deep swimming pool was displaced by the ground motion. I looked like I was at the beach, and the waves were going back and forth, from one end to the other. Do you think you could help me?--Subman758 (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know anything about this. --Berland (talk) 08:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Random post

I saw you edited a page I worked on (don't worry, you didn't delete any of my stuff) I only found you through the history of the harmonic mean.

I see that you have made 4 edits to it recently. I edited it before you also, about 3 edits.

I am wondering if you will work with me to help build up the harmonic mean article?

You and I have degrees in the mathematics, and am proposing to you that we dissect the harmonic mean page and try to make sure its very clear, and can make the article readable across a broader range of "prereqs". The article has had several section re-writes but I think that you and I could collaborate and bring the whole article into a unified style, without the "gaps" which I describe as when it talks in simpleton language and then back to math-heavy.

I worked on the "in finance" section, and I tried to make my section a little too "dumbed-down" compared to the physics examples. I have a background in finance, calculus and physics, and my finance knowledge is beyond the ability to no where I leave other readers with a blank stare.

Lastly, I'm not an admin. I'm just a volunteer who has taken pride in my work, and want wikipedia to prove that a freely-editable encyclopedia can infact police itself and be "profitable" in the sense that humanity, as a whole is philanthropic and if given a free place where trolls and philanthropists can both work on a public project, that society is more untrollish than not.

What do you think? I want to improve this article and a couple other articles that could be in the realm of normal readers if we make the article less intimidating, more congruent, and well thought out. Sentriclecub (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I recognized that this article needed some rewrite and resectioning. I can't promise large contributions, but I will certainly follow up your changes and contribute whenever I can. --Berland (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimania 2010 could be coming to Stockholm!

I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.

People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 07:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] commons:Image:LinearRegression.svg

Hi, can you update the gnuplot code in this image commons:Image:LinearRegression.svg? Thanks, --Wiso (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See this diff, maybe that was what you were looking for. --Berland (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NMR in porous media

Thanks for your input an this article. I have had my eye on it since it was introduced a few days ago, seeing whether it would blossom or fade. Your inputs seem to be helping greatly. However, I wanted to point out that one change you made, to move a sentence period after the reference note, does not follow the Wikipedia conventions for references. By convention, references generally follow any punctuation rather than precede it. I hope this helps in your future contributions to Wikipedia! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting and notifying me. I will also work to let this page blossom, and not fade. --Berland (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Contents