User talk:Jamesinderbyshire/Archive 4

Literature
Please discuss this issue on the Literature section of the UK discussion page, as your reasons for reverting leave me head-scratching. Mabuska (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been doing and it's pretty clear, both from that and my edit comments - which bit do you not follow? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well firstly the poor grammer and spellings. What exactly was? Mabuska (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Edit: "contribuation"   "particulary"  "There are various authors born abroad such as"  "also contribuated"

''contribuation includes C. S. Lewis, W. B. Yeats, Jonathan Swift, Oscar Wilde, Bram Stoker, and George Bernard Shaw, Joseph Conrad, T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound, and more recently British]]. There are various authors born abroad such as Kazuo Ishiguro and Sir Salman Rushdie. outside of the United Kingdom, particulary in Commonwealth countries and the United States, who have also contribuated greatly to its literature. Significant examples include J. R. R. Tolkien, Joseph Conrad, T. S. Eliot, and Ezra Pound.''

Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah i see. I always spelt them that way, but that will change now. Though that edit you've provided above does not look like the edit i made that you reverted. Unless of course you are showing me the sentences with mispellings. Can we resume this over at the UK talk page as i've posted another proposal and reasons and questions. Mabuska (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Iain Dale entry
James I see you have edited out the LBC part of my Wikipedia intro. You describe it as an advert and have instead added that I am a blogger, even though you then say I have given it up.

Could I ask you to reinstate the LBC part, even if you word it differently. It is a fact, not an advert, that I present a show on LBC every week night from 7 until 10. That is my main activity now and should be reflected in the intro.

Any queries please email me iain@iaindale.com

Iaindale (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a fact, but the wording and context suggested puff-piece; to be fair, I was in a bit of a rush when I did that and it's always best to improve rather than delete - I will take another look at it today if poss. There's actually nothing to stop "you" (I am assuming you are the Iain Dale) editing your own article of course, so long as you make it clear what's going on. The main issue is how you are notable according to the rules. You appear to be primarily notable as a blogger and the LBC thing is recent. Introductory text for a living person is usually partly about why someone is notable - hence the other reason for my revert was that the article intro appeared to be implying that you are a "radio personality" when the weight of sourcing has you as a "blogger". Feel free to counter my argument. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, looking more closely at the article, it appears that you do in fact edit your own article. On the piece I challenged about your LBC show, I was mainly concerned to remove the reference link to your blog - generally, blogs are not accepted as sources and in this case I felt there was an extra point that the piece linked to on your blog looks and feels like an advert for your show (headline: "From Monday, The Iain Dale Show on LBC, Every Weeknight!") - this comes under the no-advertising/spamming policy so was deleted. I will reword and find a different source. Thanks for your assistance. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Iain Dale
James, You asked about the blog. I started it in March 2002 on a trip to Washington. It started life as Mr Dale's Diary (a reference to the 1960s Radio 4 programme Mrs Dale's Diary). It changed name when I became a political candidate. I stopped the blog in May 2005 when I started working for David Davis as Chief of Staff, but resumed in December 2005 when I regained my freedom.

As regards its current status, I stopped formal blogging in mid December. The only updates are alerts to what is on my LBC programme and the Daley Dozen and the odd interview text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaindale (talk • contribs) 23:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info - I will take a look at ways to introduce this information into the article, which I think will add to readers' interest. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Scottish Brands
So, James, why don't you enlighten me as to why Scottish brands is more of a valid category than English brands? Hmmm? The Mummy (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Running out of AGF
Your participation in the discussion on my talk page regarding "Famine and process" shows that you are aware that your recent undoing of my edit is disruptive. You have a history of doing this at Famine in India and this is the third or fourth time I am assuming good faith and not taking this to ANI or other DRR processes. I suggest you read and understand processes (particulary WP:BRD) and moreover work hard at understanding the Wikipedia spirit. Once you grasp that and start acting genuinely, I am sure nothing can stop us from working collaboratively, no matter how distant our viewpoints may be. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh? The edit you point to is true - it was funny seeing you accuse Snowded of that. It isn't evidence of disruption, it's evidence that you made me laugh. On the actual process, next time you actually want to edit collaboratively instead of simply manouevering to try to get your POV through no matter what, let me know, and I will be happy to "collaborate". So far I see zero evidence of that from you. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, AGF only makes sense if we ensure there aren't any communication gaps. What I meant was you participated in the thread Famine and process so you ought to have read it in full. Since it appears you didn't, the specific post I was referring to was the very first one. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur, Z please stop whinging on multiple forums and either work collaboratively, or if  you are confident of your position go to ANI (you have after all tried everywhere else), but then you should expect your own behaviour to be examined.-- Snowded  TALK  10:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer spending all of my Wikipedia time in article space and talk space than at ANI. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then do that and stop forum shopping -- Snowded TALK  06:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Antiquity and Derbyshire
Can I raise your intrigue? Victuallers (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can, and hello. Are you local? I will take a closer look, very interesting, thanks! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Egypt
I am not warring with you, just statements were made that were simply in correct. There is a major difference between will leave and intends to leave, and the BBC News broadcast at 21:00 GMT showed the phrase - INTEND was used. I think my friend you will see in time that I was 100% accurate. Nice to have a whole comment of international interest removed... including somebody's else statement I was merely correcting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinumshore (talk • contribs) 23:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't make any edits in the article Platinumshore, as you were hitting it so hard nobody else could! By the way, please use four tildas to sign your comments in talk pages. The article is locked from editing now because of your activity, so if you want to edit it again, you will need to go to the Talk:Egypt page and make any suggestions for revision. The text you were adding was not referenced properly and contained your own opinions. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I was specifying no options, and I only edited the page once to include other information on top of what other people had stated about the live broadcast. In fact it was what the other person said that was stating an opinion - 'that his regime was over', which clearly isn't the case, because he never said that in the live broadcast. I might INTEND to become President of the United States, doesn't mean that I will :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Platinumshore (talk • contribs) 00:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

nadir
Hi, just to clarify, the 66 counts no longer exist - it is inaccurate to say they are outstanding. The SFO has dropped these and reformed a new indictment on which Mr Nadir is currently charged. If you wish to ask any further info regarding this (or the case) then please email us at contact@barkco.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.150.0 (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw your edits but am unconvinced and will need more than just your word, given "your" (let's assume your IP number is "you" you, given that you haven't managed to figure out the simple step of creating an account) pretty obvious conflict of interest. In Wikipedia we need quality references we can source. An abundance of sources say he was charged with those counts originally. We need to explain in easy language why that has changed and give good sourcing for it. Happy to hear about that from you here and will write it up if it's a good story. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the vandal-fighting
My stupid bloody ISP died on me in the middle of the Noreena Hertz vandalism episode. Thanks for sorting out the RPPing and keeping the anonymous hordes at bay! —Tom Morris (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Typical! Hope it's back up now properly - thanks for your help as well last night, it was appreciated. Quite a mix of nasty sentiments behind those attacks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Added template for SuggestBot
Hi,

Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.

We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.

We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.

If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2011 (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. 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, 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 (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Taoiseach
Just curious James: what was it that led you to Taoiseach yesterday? It wouldn't have popped up on your watchlist, as the last change on the article was 27 January. Was it this perchance? Whether it was that thread or not, it looks to be canvassing, or at least more evidence of 'stirring'. Not really sure of the difference, it's still disruptive. Daicaregos (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen the diff you point to (this may astonish you, but I don't spend every minute of the day combing GD's talk page for his latest pearls of wisdom - and perhaps you may have noticed that I'm not perhaps his best buddy!) until you showed it to me but if you are genuinely interested, I was browsing articles about the Irish banking crisis and the change in government there just for my own knowledge and it made me wonder about it. Clearly I do have an interest (as apparently do you) in the way articles in these islands use language and as I said, I'm really just curious about it. If you want to contribute to a discussion on it, feel free to respond. Note that I'm being noticeably more polite to you on my talk page than you were to me on yours last time we spoke mano-a-mano! :) On the point itself, it's plainly wrong that the article is called Taoiseach and so for once I find myself in agreement with GoodDay about that point. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your polite response to my polite question, James. I expected nothing less of you :) As I said, just curious. Coincidences do happen. I haven't made any comment on the Talkpage, simply because I am certain that any attempted page move hasn't a snowballs. I don't tend to 'interfere' unless I think it necessary. Even the BBC call the office Taoiseach. Although they sometimes say "Irish Prime Minister, or Taoiseach", and sometimes they say "Irish Prime Minister, or Taoiseach as it is called in Ireland"(my emphasis). Nevertheless, I wondered if you thought posting about articles on one's own Talkpage in order to highligh a perceived problem should be considered to be canvassing, at least more evidence of 'stirring', or disruptive. Or perhaps all three. Daicaregos (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought what you say on your own talk page is pretty much your business, unless presumably it's to make threats or whatever. On the BBC thing, I've heard them say both, so in reality I agree there is disagreement about it's use. The problem as I saw it when I posted that is that there appears to be a discontinuity between commonname redirects like the Kaiser pointing to accurate English translations or transliterations of the full foreign title and that one. Maybe part of the problem is that the English translation is vague (chieftan? leader?) and would sound odd as a direct translation. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Luciana Berger
Hello. You've made two deletions from this article and I wondered what your rationale might be. In your first edit summary you state "Referenced article in the Telegraph does not mention Berger" when the article is very clearly a valid source both for Berger's age and her appointment to the shadow cabinet. In the second summary you say "Irrelevant material; the Guardian snippet was part of a generalised reflection on another story". What might be relevant to an article is always going to be a subjective judgement but the article would appear to be a significant reference to Berger from a very reliable source that reflects both the gossip that has circulated about her and its refutation. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Alistair, speed-reading the Telegraph bit and missed that one line! Bit slender though, do you agree? I will look for a better ref for that line. The gossipy stuff I tend to think we should take out as a whole, particularly the parts about the alleged affair. I realise it is suggestive of favoritism or cliqueism but as it's been rejected and this is a BLP...? Thoughts? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Any source seems better than none but if you find a better one, that's obviously an improvement. Because reliable coverage of Berger is going to be minimal at this stage of her career it seems a pity to drop references to her from good sources that reflect the way she's perceived at Westminster. But you certainly may have a point if you're suggesting a non-existent relationship might not be worth mentioning. Thanks for explaining. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I worry that some of the material in the article has been put in to "make a bad impression" of her - not that I want to keep it out if it's well sourced, but some is of the Daily Mail tittle-tattle variety. I do think it's a story that she made it into a working-class Liverpool constituency with some typical Party jiggery-pokery, but there's doubtless another story there about her strengths that needs covering and women politicians often seem to get it in the neck about their personal lives. I guess it's a balancing act. Will look for a better ref on the other bit. Thanks for your comments. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Chicken Tikka Massala
09:57, 11 February 2011 Jamesinderbyshire ''Please try reading the sourced article. "Rahul Verma, Delhi's most authoritative expert on street food"''

Hello James

You may have noticed that a previous contributor put a 'who?' tag next to 'An expert on street food'. As you correctly point out, the Telegraph article calls Rahul Verna just this. The reason why I changed this to 'food critic' is this: calling him an expert is subjective. How much evidence is there to corroborate this? Not an awful lot that I could find. This doesn't mean that he isn't, but do consider:

What does he do for a living? Answer: He is a food critic for various publications. That is a solid fact, and googling 'Rahul Verma food critic' yields several hits as well as his journalism, whereas looking for more substantial evidence to support his expertise on street food is harder to find and is more inferred than prima facie. In my view he is first and foremost a food critic, which has bearing on this encyclopedia article. That he is also seen as an expert on Delhi street food is an interesting additional aspect and not as hard a fact.

I'm not going to change your edit, but I hope you will see the logic that lead me to tweak your original words. I was aware of the sourced article and do not wish to undermine your contribution.

Kind regards Guffydrawers (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't us calling him an "expert", it's the source, hence my revert. The other stuff you offer as evidence is interesting but basically your original research compared to the source, unless you introduce another reference alluding to his status as a food critic. If you do, you could write something like "food critic and expert on Indian street food" but if you want to go against the source, your only recourse at present would be to say "who according to Daily Telegraph journalist xxxx is a leading expert on Indian street food" - get the drift? You can't just knock something out that's clearly sourced from a reasonable quality source unless you have more and can cite it in the article, not just "google it". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback, James. Guffydrawers (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2011 (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) 12:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Don't miss this after your earlier help. Need to sign up, you will see we already have 14 languages! Victuallers (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC) A reminder James, care to sign up Victuallers (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2011 (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) 12:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Saturday 9th April
James, we lost contact - Can you make it Saturday - lots of interesting stuff see here. Can you reply on my page? Victuallers (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Victuallers (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Noreena Hertz / Danny Cohen
Hi James,

Thanks for your message to Factwriter - I've replied on the Talk page you started but wanted to let you know here as it has been a while since you posted your message.

Thanks and best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factwriter (talk • contribs) 17:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Taken various actions on these Factwriter - feel free to monitor those articles yourself as well, the more the better. I agree with your views on the matter. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:
 Tide  rolls  19:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

BISE
The problem is - one side has learned to play by the rules better than the other - which is a good thing on one level but on another, the ridiculous business goes on with various policies being abused, relentless perseverance, tag teaming and ANI reports to get each other blocked. I agree it needs concentrated admin attention. Fainites barley scribs 20:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your summary. The perseverance of on the one side auto-deletionism with the thinnest of rationales and on the other repetitive childish misbehaviour in no way contribute. I have reached the conclusion that a fierce admin attitude towards the least personal commentary is a must. On tag-teaming, the BISE page arose purely because local article add/deletes are usually both unexpected and mystifying to local editors (the origins of my own involvement lie buried in the depths of articles about 12th century theological disputes being cut across in this odd way!) - it was I think something of an oddity in WP terms but a useful one. This kind of trans-WP campaign against the use of a particular phrase generally used in books, literature, academic sources, etc seems somewhat unusual. Of course the key underlying problem is that there is no separate Wikipedia for the "view from Ireland" (or perhaps separate Wikipedias for "each view from Ireland"!) but we all have to trade in the one English language WP. Tag-teaming operates at those local article levels somewhat invisibly and was easier to observe at the Bise level. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutable Realms
I went ahead and added it to the list of AfD discussions for yesterday. MrKIA11 (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely unrelated, but you might want to move your signpost subscription at the top of this page to be after the notification so they're not overlapping. MrKIA11 (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh OK, thanks for the info - I thought I'd followed the process but it's quite fiddly - will take another look. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2011 (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) 11:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk for Death of Osama bin Laden
If you have a question or comment about something on the talk page, please leave it on the talk page for that article. NOT on MY talk page. It is not a private message system. Wing Dairu (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I was trying to avoid having a public discussion which might cause you some mild stress to ask you (as my comment in your talk page made clear - which is a reasonable use of talk pages btw) what source you had in mind, as clearly there was no source other than your opinion. I also am still wondering about the basis of your many comments and edits - do you work for the US government in some capacity? If you have no interest in a polite response that's fine but if that's the case expect robust future analysis of your role in the article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I like to bold the title of the article in the article itself. Is it bad form to do "The death of Obama bin Laden occurred" versus the previous format? jengod (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is if it's Obama with a "b". :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks James for the very nice message - I'm not giving up (goodness knows I've tried to often enough) but I do think I will try to leave that particular one alone for a while as it seems to be triggering some kind of OCD/nostalgia attack! I've said my piece and there really is a good argument for a nice cuppa and a ginger snap now. I do very much appreciate your kind remarks. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome, thanks for your time and contributions. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay
To answer your question: GoodDay's low-level disruption has certainly continued. This edit is just yet another example of that. However, the Code of Conduct at British Isles Terminology task force has yet to be agreed. Other than Disruptive editing did you have anything specific in mind? Daicaregos (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If ya (plural) want to ABF & seek getting me sanctioned? then that's your (plural) decision. But, I must advice you, I won't put up much of a defence. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2011 (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) 09:11, 30 May 2011 (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) 17:16, 27 June 2011 (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) 02:18, 26 July 2011 (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) 13:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)