Well, I don't have much knowledge of this article, but I reverted myself, so feel free to get back to work on the article (and/or talk page comments) and let me know if there are any problems.   jj137 ^♠ 04:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put back in the bibliography and the trailer lines - {reflist} has to be there, it acts as a placeholder for all the citations in the body of the article.

The current numeric references (i.e. [24] et al.) need to be inline references. I don't know if you know how to do this... On the assumption you don't it needs a 'citation' as documented in WP:REF and Template:Cite (the easiest to use) or, for more exact information Template:Cite book. In essense you use 'cite' enclosed in {} where you want to cite something - you get a number inline and the reflist at the end of the article gets the full citation in an approved form. 'ref' is used to tag the citation so you can use it again without repeated the whole thing. Here's an example - a book of Oregon place names and info.^[1] - edit *this* entry to see what the markup is. (The easiest thing is to copy one of these into the Parenti article then correct the info - title, author, ISBN etc.)

You don't need to add this:

Jbowler (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC) John Bowler[reply]

Well, it doesn't look like there's enough vandalism to have the article semi-protected right now.   jj137 ^♠ 17:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been complaining talking to Jbowler about the difficulty of reference formatting. My recommendation is - if it's too difficult to figure out how to do it, don't worry about it, just complete it in the same way as you would complete a normal Word document. The only thing that really matters is to make sure that your footnote numbers mean something, so all you need to add to your present text is a reference list at the bottom explaining which books you have designated with [3], [6] etc.. That shouldn't be too much work, and that's what would make your material really verifiable. The conversion to the usual Wikipedia-style footnotes can be done by someone else, it's not urgent at all and in fact it's not even formally mandatory (see WP:Citing sources. --Anonymous44 (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Anonymous44's talk page:

No Complaint

[edit]

I suggest two things here one is that I asked for assistance and the other is that we have opposing agendas. I would like to see an appropriate article, properly cited which a consensus may agree upon in the near future. You seem contentious and argumentative.--Jilliana27 (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll change the word "complaining" to "saying". You have said that it's difficult. Will that make you pay attention to the rest of what I wrote, namely that you don't need to do the difficult part? I'm trying to help here, despite the fact that we have opposing opinions, because our common goal should be to fix this as soon as possible. --Anonymous44 (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)