Talk:Reduced dimensions form

Is this rather short sentence

Since RDFs are uniquely obtained from the data, they have many advantageous [sic] over other mathematical and statistical methods that were developed for solving two-state trajectories.[23][24][25][26] [27][28][29][30][31][32][33] [34][35][36][37][38] [39][40][41] [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] [54]

particularly contentious? I have never seen one that seemed to require so many references. It makes me wonder whether there is a WP:COI in play here. Ian Spackman (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a scientific field, many scientists write, and each paper (scientific article) presents a specific finding. Citing all the references is important for those that study the system seriously. Since most of the papers cited in this article are from different authors, the only interest here is making this article clear. * The division of the references in this article is now even more accurate than before. OFLOMENBOM (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply for the June 20 comment

I have written this article since it is in the field of my scientific activity. This article simply presents a solution for a problem in biophysics that many scientists work on. It is important focusing on the fact that reduced dimensions forms are a mathematical solution for a scientific problem, and an article on this subject was published several years ago in the journal of PNAS, showing that the solution is correct and important for those that work on the subject. It is important presenting this in Wikepedia since this solves many experiemnts on single molecules, a topic that appears in Wikipedia. Clearly, other scientists can read this article and try improving it. This is the interest of Wikipedia that scientists will write on things they know about and worked on, and many will contribute in any article, rather than individuals that did not work on the subject will present the scientific topic.

OFLOMENBOM (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]