"== References == 

 In light of Isotope23's comment, see here for some tips on referencing facts. There's also tons of templates to help you format your references. Hope this helps you to create more reliable articles.   
 :Yeah i will look into it.  

 === Matrix17 → Zingostar === 
 * Current name:  
 * Requested name:  ([ rename user]) 
 * Reason: Just feel like changing to a new and good name. 

 :The request needs to be listed on the changing username page to be processed. Also, there's quite a good chance that it'll be failed. Still, there's no harm in trying.   
 ::Did I say your request would be failed? It just goes to show that you don't have to be a prophet to be a Wikipedian. -] Well, I guess I'll have to get used to calling you Zingostar! Something else I think I ought just to mention is edit summaries. It may seem tedious, but a quick and informative summary can be a great help for other users wanting to expand on your contributions. Sometimes, it can be the only at-a-glance distinction between improvements and vandalism. For example: A user sees something incorrect in an article and deletes it, but neglects to put an edit summary. Later, a vandal-busting user sees the change and reverts it, not knowing why it was done. You see what I mean.   
 :yes you are totally right:) i will do that. Yeah wikipedia works in mysterious ways:)  
 ::When I said '[an] informative summary', 'small' and 'minor' weren't quite what I had in mind. Users can work out if an edit is minor by looking for an 'm' next to the summary, so the summary itself should really be something along the lines of 'Spelling correction(s)' or 'Added link(s)'. To see what I mean, have a look at . If you find yourself forgetting to put in an edit summary, go to Preferences and click on the 'Editing' tab. Tick the box (near the bottom of the page) labelled 'Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary' and hit save. You'll now get a little warning message if you haven't entered a summary. N.B. This feature tends to miss automatic edit summaries (e.g. reversions), so just ignore it if there's obviously a summary there. 

 ::Hope this helps.   

 == Year linking == 

 As per my previous request, please do not link years where it does not add context, as you did here. Thanks,   

 == Please don't bite the IPs == 
 It doesn't matter if they don't have a userpage and it is a bit bite-y to suggest that it does.  In that example it would have been better to leave a polite message that you have reverted their change because the removed a chunk of cited text (though I have to say, I tend to agree with the IP that that particular text is a bit off topic in the Scooch article unless it is being used to suggest that is the reason Scooch performed poorly, in which case it should be more clearly worded).  In this case it would have been preferable to tell the IP that you reverted them and to please provide a source on the talkpage if they feel the information in the article is not correct.  
 :To expand on the above, just remember that not all I.P.s are necessarily intent on vandalism. If they want to make a one-off change then they're welcome to, although obviously we would much prefer them to stay and do more. The guideline on how to treat possible vandalism can be found here. Also, keep in mind Hanlon's razor: 

 :[[User talk:CarrotMan