User talk:OliverTwisted/Archive 1

Art of War
Thanks for being so understanding. I hope you decide to stick around. Regarding The Art of War (disambiguation), there is already a link to Sun-Tzu's book, which El Norte Press has simply issued in a new edition. WP:DISAMBIG covers the sorts of things that are appropriate for disambiguation pages; since we wouldn't have a whole article on a single edition of a book, we wouldn't mention it on the disambiguation page. But please feel free to contribute to Wikipedia in other ways. And (ironic as it might sound now), ignore all rules: if you do something wrong, someone else will come along and fix it!  RJC  TalkContribs 16:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I had missed that you had said Mao's Art of War, not Sun Tzu's. Still, Mao never wrote a book called The Art of War.  The El Norte Press edition is a compilation of four separate treatises.  They would be notable individually, but none would be linked to the Art of War disambiguation page since none of them shares that title, nor could the El Norte edition be advertised on any of the articles devoted to one of those four treatises (e.g., On Protracted War).  RJC  TalkContribs 23:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between editions that on their own satisfy the requirements of WP:N and the insertion of information about a specific edition into articles about a book. A more specific notability guideline is available at WP:NB.  Since The Art of War (disambiguation) is not a heavily-edited page, leaving this to another editor to correct does not seem likely to resolve this problem.  If you like, you can request a third opinion, which would bring others into the discussion.   RJC  TalkContribs 04:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. While anything written by Mao Zedong would count as notable, a collection of his writings, assembled under a title that he never chose, would not be.  It is for this reason that I am loathe to include The Art of War as one of Mao's writings or to put it on the disambiguation page.  One thing that caught my eye was your claim that this work is referenced in scholarly papers.  That would be a sign of notability.  Did Mao ever publish these works together as unit under the title, The Art of War? Who has discussed the works by this title?  RJC  TalkContribs 06:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for your comments. The fact that this edition appears in the footnote of an unpublished paper does not make it notable; blogs are not reliable sources, either.  You mention that this book is used at West Point.  I would correct you to say that this edition has been ordered by the West Point bookstore; the book in question does not exist — except as a creation of El Norte Press.  You mention your expertise:  expert editors addresses this issue, so we don't have to throw our credentials on the table.  If you wish to pursue this further, the link for a third opinion is above.   RJC  TalkContribs 08:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Nietzsche and Kant
Nietzsche and Kant? That is a tough one, though I suppose it shouldn't be. I suspect it's largely a matter of taste: those who think Nietzsche is a serious thinker have problems taking Kant seriously, and vice versa. Stanley Rosen argues that Postmodernism is just the outgrowth of Kant's philosophy (Politics as Hermeneutics), and insofar as Postmodernists have a debt to Nietzsche that would be a link. Karl Löwith's book on German philosophy begins with Hegel, not Kant. I really can't think of any direct comparison — sorry.  RJC  TalkContribs 05:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Vote Early and Vote Often
Just Kidding!

Please exercise your right to vote today!

You have no idea how refreshing...
It is to see a message like that. 99% of people get all defensive, even if they are new users. Feel free to drop by my talk page for any reason.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bnuttsin2/FANET
I created the subpage Bnuttsin2/FANET as a favor to the user so his content would be preserved when the article page on which he'd inappropriately placed it was deleted. It wasn't an experiment, it's a common and ordinary use of a user subpage. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Gotcha, thanks for the heads up

--digitalmischief (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr sunitha krishnan
I wanted to give you a heads up that I am removing the SD tag from Dr sunitha krishnan. The article is for a real person that seems to have enough G-hits to warrant listing. If you have any concerns about this please let me know. Thanks... ttonyb1 (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop Inappropriately tagging articles
You're repeatedly tagging things for speedy deletion incorrectly. Stop now, and go read WP:CSD before tagging another article. Jclemens (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * virtually every article that i tagged for deletion that was undone, has now been tagged and deleted by other editors. I appreciate your feedback, but please respect my contributions enough to make requests, rather than demands.--digitalmischief (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that I came here to tell you the same as I noticed several mistaggings that can be avoided (likethis which might be A7 but never G2). I am advising you to read WP:CSD again (and the explanations), making yourself familiar with the very narrow scope that is speedy deletion. You might also want to readUser:Balloonman/Why I hate Speedy Deleters, which lists common mistakes made when tagging. Please do make yourself familiar with the scope of speedy deletion and consider using WP:PROD or WP:AFD as alternatives more often. Keep up the patrolling. Regards  So Why  09:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

More help required
Hello. Thank you for the message. I didn't understand the sandbox thing until now. Those are my first two articles. Please, tell me what else am I missing or what can I do to improve them. Thank you. Mirapaltecho(talk) 08:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again. I'll wait 'till tomorrow and see what happens. I've still got so much work to do here... many things to learn, but that's ok for today. Mirapaltecho (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Scope question
Hey Oliver. There is a discussion going on at Talk:Mars Science Laboratory on the scope of the article. Would appreciate having your input before we close the discussion and attempt to determine if there is a consensus. Please take a look, and if you have the time and interest, weigh in on the question of "now that the article has been split, what is the scope of the MSL article? Cheers.  N2e (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC for community wide discussion
Right now you have a discussion going about your basic concerns regarding the Huffington Post at the Reliable sources notice board. I suggest you make a Request for comment if you wish to rehash the entire community wide consensus formed over the years. The example you use has only one problem, it is the same with any other AP story referenced from another publication...it is not the actual source. Associated Press is the source and by guidlines in regards to criteria does include authorship. The HP article shows that the attribution they give is to a journalist from the AP and not from a staff writer. It is best to use the originating reference as AP and not HP. Just using an Associated Press story does not mean that all Huffington Post material is acceptable. While this particular use is not an outright policy or guideline breach, HP is considered a "Questionable source" as defined by: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." In order to change a community wide consensus one needs to provide accurate reasons as well as start the discussion in the right way, by adressing the community as a whole through an RFC and not just with a statement that you are addressing the entire community.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and let's keep it there to avoid any more disruption of the Paul Ryan article. I understand your view.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  10:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's take a time out, after viewing your comments here, there and everywhere. The issue that was posted about originally has been addressed. The source was changed, days ago. There was an edit war going on at the time, over the Paul Ryan "brown nose" comments, among others, that were raging in media coverage... during the minutes leading up to the public announcement of Mitt Romney's running mate for the Presidency of the United States of America. This wasn't just lolly, golly, bang, bang. Take a serious look at the edit history.


 * I posted the link to the edit in question on the noticeboard conversation we are having. An editor deleted a contested piece of information, during a flurry of heavy reverts, with the only available edit summary being that the Huffington Post was unreliable. The source was changed at least a half a dozen times within hours, as was the statement. Rather than attempt to revert myself, after I had already attempted to intervene, I asked for a recent comment on the issue on the talk page. Later, after viewing those arguments, both for and against, I moved the discussion to a more appropriate venue to have my intellectual question answered by a group of people with less hot heads than were prevailing on that page at the time. Rather than continue to disrupt a process I was attempting to help mediate, given the lack of any admin intervention, I then moved it to the noticeboard, as per policy. I also contacted the admin who protected the Paul Ryan talk page to ask if we could upgrade the protection to avoid this incessant vandalism (revert wars). The new Pending Changes 2nd level protection status would not seem to be available yet, as it was just voted on for adoption. So, it was back to warning and reporting over the reverts.


 * The noticeboard conversation has been up for all of a day. At some point, when I have time, I will most likely take your advice, and open a community wide request for comment, as I believe the situation has changed, based upon my research when asking the question in the first place. I am referring to change in structure, ownership, and oversight of the Huffington Post. I am also talking about rules which have been clarified regarding the source of the material, and author vs. publisher distinctions, and I wish to explore it more fully. In the meantime, I would request that you pick a venue, of the 3 on which we are having simultaneous conversations, and let's stick with just that one.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  12:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you are doing a great job. Keep it up, however You started several different threads that are garnering different replies and i cannot promise to stick to one thread on this particular subject. I don't object to the request, just that I didn't start the threads. Perhaps it might be best to go to the Ryan talpkpage thread and close and collapse it using the Full tex being collapsed  and that way you can lable it "resolved" in the "Collpased title bar" and then no further discussion will take place there. Perhaps a link to the noticeboard discussion or the RFC you start added inside before collapsing.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Communication of this nature will win you my undivided attention. I think we just caught each other at the wrong time. I really was never asking for blanket permission to revert HuffPo citation removals all willy nilly. Before last week, I've never edited a single political page that didn't show up in a vandalism report, and I would normally rather slowly walk over hot coal than wade into politics. I have a question on proceeding with collapsing the section, which is a great idea. edited the template out of the page>
 * Never mind, fixed it. It was just a spacing issue. This ought to make things easier. Also, you were right, I am male. Your "Sir" comment just tickled my funny bone. I had a mental image of being slapped across the face with a white handkerchief and called out onto the field of honor.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There you go.
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Ryan#Calling_conservative_organizations_conservative. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been monitoring the situation. No one has ruled on my previous case for this page for a different user, and I suspect no one will rule on this one. Admins started avoiding this page like the plague on Saturday. I have had all the communication necessary with this user, and will not be editing any more content nor starting any new discussions on the Paul Ryan article. I won't be dragged into an edit war. Learned that yeas ago. I posted diffs on the user's page. You might be able to cobble a case together with the ones that you have, but a day has passed. The behavior is obvious. The specifics are going to requite more time than I have right now.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  09:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not touching the article page on this matter until every last one of his endless excuses is batted away. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding intent, behavior, and most likely suspects, I found these graphics interesting: ,.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hingorani
That may not be the right place for that information. But it is true that he got recognition from that serial on Doordarshan. The serial was Paying Guest. He acted as a live-in servant in the house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.212.18 (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Information or facts such as this need a reliable source, used as an in-line citation. Please see these pages on Wikipedia for more information on these guidelines: WP:RS, WP:CITE. Thanks for taking the time to communicate.  O liver  T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  03:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

your claims of my edit beeing vandalism
according to the german wiki article DFC Prag my 'vandalism' is not 'vandalism' but the truth and by rewivew it evan the english article states in a later paragraoph my socalld 'vadalism' itself without me posting it so i wonder if you also change that paragraph for socalld vandalism right ???134.3.76.108 (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the misunderstanding, but the reason for the revert was that your edit was flagged as a "test edit" by an automated software bot. In this case, it was this information: which was added to the article. If you feel the reversal was in error, you may attempt to re-add the information, however without an in-line citation to a reliable source, it is likely to be challenged and reverted, perhaps again by an automated bot. For more information on how to cite information from reliable sources, please visit this link: WP:CITE. Best of luck with your future editing.  O liver   T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  11:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Human baby
Thanks, that is very nice of you! I agree, of course. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have no idea how refreshing it is for me to see an affirmation of life and unrestricted possibility on Wikipedia among the user talk pages, when often they tend to be full of sarcasm and the rantings of bitter little tyrants clutching at fiefdoms of air. Cherish your new precious gift! Thank YOU! ;0)  O liver   T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  04:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan
I thought it was important to add Paul Ryan's immigrant ancestry and the first Janesville ancestor. I'm one of our family's (not Ryan's, my family lines) amateur genealogists. The research I did on Paul Ryan is not the first little bit I've done on politicians. I have noticed that Paul Ryan's Janesville roots are more and more of interest. The fact of his Irish immigrant roots was already brought up before I got to the article. Better genealogists than I am may well be able to discover more of interest, and the fact they found them on Wikipedia may be of interest and spark something factual. Thanks for deciding not to delete my addition. I have learned 100 times more about history from doing genealogy, as people's associations through family are really half the story (more often than not 100 years ago compared to now, where whom one's family knows is still very important).SongspiritUSA (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a moment to talk. If you feel that it would be appropriate to re-add 3 generations of genealogy to the Paul Ryan article, I will not remove the information. I can't promise that others will not. My main issue was that the ancestors of Paul Ryan were named, and typically, we avoid naming people who do not themselves have notability on Wikipedia, with the exception of the immediate family, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Otherwise, it tends to fall into the category of trivia. Notability is not inherited, nor bequeathed to previous generations. While I agree that his ancestry is not trivial, how many generations we decide to include, as well as how much information we decide to include is really up to us. Please feel free to pursue whichever course of action you feel appropriate, with my blessings.  O liver   T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  04:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Archiving on Talk:Paul Ryan
I notice you had increased the archive size up to 500k. I went ahead and have consolidated the four existing archives into one and placed CSDs on the 3 now empty archives. That way, the archive sizes will be consistent and we won't have 3 very small archives and then have the remainder much larger. Safiel (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I noticed the bot was giving an "archive full" message, and 100K seemed much too small for such a fast moving page. Consistency and ease of navigation are paramount, so thanks for taking the necessary steps.  O liver   T wisted (Talk) (Stuff)  04:18, 20 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) 02:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:21, 17 April 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) 23:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:41, 25 April 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) 23:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:14, 16 May 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) 04:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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) 00:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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) 00:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

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) 00:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)