User talk:Belchfire/Archive 1

talk archive


 * }

Some of your recent edits
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I've noticed a few of your recent edits and, as a new editor, I would advise taking some time to read some of our policies and guidelines. Don't worry, no one expects you to know them all. A few things though: please don't remove material that is cited to a reliable source, with an edit summary like "Removed obviously untrue statement regarding Starbuck's." If you have a reliable source that says differently, feel free to add that. if you just disbelieve what the source says, please start a discussion on the article talkpage. Please don't make a large number of non-trivial changes to an article and mark the edit as "minor". This is misleading to other editors, particularly when the edit summary doesn't begin to describe the changes you've made. That edit introduced a number of errors into the article, including overlinking of common terms, changing links to specific articles to point at disambiguation pages and removing legitimate interwiki links to articles in other languages. For that reason, I have reverted the edit. I'm not familiar with the subject and don't doubt that you've made some good changes. I suggest you make smaller changes, with descriptive edit summaries, so that people can see what you're changing and why.

Lastly, please don't change gender-related pronouns or descriptions without discussion. Transgender issues are complicated anyway and can cause conflict on WIkipedia when editors try to decide the best way to describe people. It is not something that is done lightly. Our manual of style says "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to using the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." In any case, describing male to female transexuals as "trans men" does not "clarify" anything, since the term "trans men" is used to describe people who are born women and have sex changes to become men. This is the opposite situation of that described in the article in question. If you think an article can be improved, feel free to start a discussion at the relevant talkpage, but coming along once a year to unilaterally make major changes without discussion is not helpful. -- Beloved Freak  11:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

June 2012
Your recent editing history at Brett Kimberlin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is another source for the Kimberlin article:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hAH9djcmqKs

Mattsky (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed PROD
I have removed the prod tag from Neil Munro (journalist), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Tacoma Streetcar Disaster, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Athleek  123  04:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Reversion
Regarding this edit of yours, I must point out that there's nothing defamatory about a sentence in the lead that complies with WP:LEAD by summarizing content in the body of the article. That's why it's there. Looking at the article as a whole, it seemed to be kind of a key point, which is why I originally restored it after an anon removed it without explanation. I have restored it again. If you disagree, please discuss on the talk page. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Do I really have to explain why that comment is defamatory towards conservatives? Seriously? At a bare minimum, that statement should be qualified by saying "some conservatives" or "some conservative-leaning groups", but to make a blanket statement and leave it bare is simply inaccurate, I don't care what your reference says.  Belchfire (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you do. Qualify the statement if you like, but to blank out a sourced statement in the lead that summarizes the body, as the lead is supposed to do, requires justification. If you have a problem with the body of the article, then argue to change it, but per WP:LEAD, the lead should provide an overview of the body regardless of your or my opinion on whether the body content should be there. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I did justify my edit, I suspect you just don't like my reason. I suggest taking it to the Talk page, and let some other editors weigh-in.  That's how WP:BRD is supposed to work.  Belchfire (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are still edit-warring there. If you want to change the meaning of a long-standing consensus version, particularly a non-controversial summary overview of the body of the article, supported by reliable sources, based on a personal perception that the long-standing version somehow maligns a particular group, the burden is on you to explain yourself on the talk page. Please do so. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Longstanding??? I reverted verbiage added on July 1 (500165823).  It's hate speech and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.  Belchfire (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just saw your last edit. Good call.  Fair and accurate.
 * Thanks. We'll see how long that lasts!
 * Regarding my claim of long-standing: I looked further back in the history and see the phrase "some conservatives" has been there for several months (I went back to November), only recently being reverted and restored, about the time you came in. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny, Belchfire, how was it "added on July 1" if you reverted it on June 29? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Check again. Look at version 500165823 and see the change made by Fayedizard on July 1, to the first sentence in the first paragraph.  The reversion I made on June 29 involved the last sentence in the first paragraph.  If Fayedizard's edit had been there on June 29, we could have fixed it all at the same time.  As I already pointed out, Amatulic's most recent edit is fair and accurate, and avoids painting all conservatives with an overly-broad brush, so I'm happy now.  Honestly, people are too quick to just revert without discussing, and that includes EVERYBODY in this dust-up, myself included. Belchfire (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Continuing here, since I started it. :)

Regarding that long parenthetical note you removed from the lead of homosexual agenda: I agree it messed up the lead, but I also agree with the person who reverted you that it is useful for the article to explain it... somewhere. I hope my solution is acceptable. I created a new reference group for notes as opposed to actual references, and anything that could be considered an explanatory note, I put in there. That includes the part you deleted, as well as other references that contained lengthy quotations. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. If the lead is more readable, I am satisfied.  The material in parenthesis should have been in the body of the article anyway. (Otherwise, it didn't belong in the lead, right?)  Belchfire (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring warning
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring&#32; after a review of the reverts you have made on Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

July 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Homosexual agenda. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"tax penalty"
A tax penalty is a penalty for messing up on your taxes. The mandate is something else. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not according to SCOTUS. Belchfire (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "we must accept the Government’s interpretation: §6201(a) instructs the Secretary that his authority to assess taxes includes the authority to assess penalties, but it does not equate assessable penalties to taxes for other purposes."-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that you can find all manner of sophistry to support your POV. There isn't any real need to prove that.  A tax is a tax is a tax.  Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.  Calling it a "fee" doesn't mean it isn't a tax, it just means the politicians who put it in place don't want to be honest about it.  Reality remains unaltered. As to the article, I offered my reasoning for my edit, and unsurprisingly I was overruled by the liberal whitewash squad. Such is life at Wikipedia.  Belchfire (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2012 (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. MastCell Talk 05:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Bold for polling
Regarding this edit, putting the leading position in bold is standard for polling for elections in the US and elsewhere. See polls listed at United States Senate election in Arizona, 2012 (three sections); United States Senate election in Nevada, 2012; Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010 (three sections); 40th British Columbia general election; Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election; Greek legislative election, June 2012. -Rrius (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No prob. -Rrius (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

WP Conservatism
I see you have an interest in conservatism-related articles. You might be interested in the most exciting, fasted growing group of editors in the entire Wikipedia:

Come by and introduce yourself--we don't bite, lol! – Lionel (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Dead refs
We assume good faith that at the time the ref was added it worked. It is better to tag dead refs with dead link. – Lionel (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good tip, thanks. Belchfire (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw it's unwise to revert multiple editors--even if it appears they are incorrect. You'll just get blocked and they'll change the article while you're on "vacation." This is exactly what Scientiom did to Lsufalcon at HA. Just wait for other interested editors--i.e. me--to show up. – Lionel (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To expand, dead links are not violations of WP:V, as discussed at WP:DEADLINK: Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online. Except for URLs in the External links section that have not been used to support any article content, do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer. Recovery and repair options and tools are available. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In case noone mentioned it--blocks are escalating. The next one after 48 is a week. – Lionel (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, well if you scroll up, you can see I've learned the hard way that 2 is the limit and as often as not, 2 times is enough. Thanks again for sharing, there's definitely lots to learn about this place. Belchfire (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been mentioned by name
here – Lionel (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Good grief, as if canvassing was really necessary - there are already multiple tag teams operating. Belchfire (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Re your request for better sources,. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(message from new editor)
I couldn't figure out how to send you a message back. Thanks for the note. I added something and left an edit note. Just to follow up; legally guilty does not mean mandatory conviction. You still have a right to plead not guilty in court. I know because I was arrested 5 years ago for DUI with blood alcohol significantly over .08 and I plead not guilty and was convicted of "Reckless Driving" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.13.221 (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

General sanctions
Hi, I noticed your recent comments on Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change. I'd like to draw your attention, in case you're new to the topic, to the fact that the entire field of climate change on Wikipedia is under general sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee. Please don't use the talk pages, edit summaries or article space for inappropriate comments, in particular attacks on other people or "us and them" style discussions. Stick to the content and discussion of how best to represent the topic, please. Take up interpersonal issues on user talk pages, and so on. If there is a glaring instance of inappropriate behaviour, please take it immediately to WP:AE. --TS 21:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this note. Much appreciated. Belchfire (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Handy links
Watcher Counts

Traffic Stats

Book Sources Wiki Blame

Re: Global warming controversy
Ironically, WP:LEAD and WP:MOSINTRO say the opposite of what you claim. Viriditas (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Negative. "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."
 * And also: "'The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific.'"
 * Thus, the first sentence of the article should be: "'The global warming controversy includes a variety of disputes about the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. '" Followed by the things that logically flow from there. It's pretty self-evident, really, unless you're trying to push a certain POV.  Belchfire (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong. "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it."  And, "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it."  In other words, "there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view, though a few organizations hold non-committal positions."  That's NPOV.  Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Political activities of the Koch family

 * Rm unsourced. Not supported by citations provided

The statement is fully supported by both The New York Times and Forbes. If you persist in making false claims in the edit summary and reverting based on these false claims, you will be reported. Viriditas (talk) 06:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Feel free to start a discussion and let other editors weigh-in. The sources say $50,000 per plate OR $75,000 per couple.  Nobody paid $50K unless they went stag.  Yes, that's nit-picky, but this is an encyclopedia.


 * More to the point, why is it even necessary to mention the per-plate cost of attendance? It was a fundraiser, that's all that matters. Everybody knows it wasn't a church spaghetti feed.  Belchfire (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You're backpedaling so fast, it looks like you're doing the moonwalk. How do you know that nobody paid 50K?  Were you at the dinner?  Do you work for Romney or Koch?  Would you like to disclose a potential conflict of interest?  The sources are clear.  Forbes reports that "Romney supporters paid $50,000 a plate (or $75,000 per couple) to mingle with Koch", and The New York Times confirms it.  What exactly is it that I need to discuss and let other editors weigh-in about? Viriditas (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Read slower, don't skim. I said nobody paid $50K unless they went stag.  I'm not backpedaling, I just explained to you why your point is shaky and why it doesn't necessarily belong in the article even if it is 100% true (it's not).  Again, go start a discussion and see what other editors think.  It's not like the decision lies with just the two of us.  Belchfire (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct, I've already weighed in, supporting Viriditas, so what we have here is a well-supported consensus against you. Now, if you have citations to prove that _nobody_ went stag, you're free to include them and we'll change it to just "$75k per couple". 24.45.42.125 (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * One more time... start a discussion and let other editors give their opinions. And while you are waiting for that to unfold, spend a little time learning Wikipedia policies.  It will improve your experience.  Belchfire (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

{{talk archive]]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)