User talk:Reo On/Archive 1

Santorum discussion
Hi -- just to confirm what you ask about in the santorum discussion -- the effect of SlimVirgin's proposal would indeed be to delete the current article, with no redirect using the current title. A small portion of the existing text would be added to a different article, but the current one would in effect be deleted, with no redirect. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank You for the note.
 * I believe, that this is also matter of debate. As I know the debate on the wiki, the outcome might be slightly changed, just acording the prevailing consenssus in the discusion. So to point out, that I disagree with the deleting the redirect is just the first step. I wonder if some other commentator will notice and put it further.


 * But I basically believe, that the phenomenon should not have this particlular title, I can basically see that this phenomenon happened and is more or less noteworthy. To merge it in the thereinmentioned article seems just fine, but I might even agree on this original article, - under the condition, that the title would be more preciselly descriptive in regards the phenomenon. Well, is the word Santorum_(neologism) really the right title for this? I tried google out at least one instance where anyone would use it in it's new meaning. Some (offending) images for instance or anything in the talk of LGBTs etc..
 * What do I mean by this? Just that the word itself is absolutelly not noteworthy et all, it is not used and even if it would the word itself would belong to the wictionary not to encyclopedia. This would be not encyclopedic content et all. What makes it noteworthy is the relationship between the new word with it's intended meaning with the personality of the said senator and all the story around him and Savage. Wikipedia should not create virtual reality, it should reflect and mirror te reality as it exists. The fact of word being created is true and the publicity of the fact is true too. But the word itself has no importance per se, so why would be Wikipedia just the wehicle to promote it's existence beyond the reality? Already now, the google links show of, that Wikipedia creates it quite a bit.
 * So in my opinion, redirect should not be deleted, but if this scenario is to happen, I see it less encyclopedic harm than the status quo.--R e o + 15:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I love the stylesheet you have on your Talk page. Honestly, as I say in the explanation below my comments on the Talk page, it wasn't a personal attack, but trying to demonstrate the negativity of the words we're discussing. I don't think Discussion is being killed, we have a LOT of editors who are trucking along with comments and input, but I don't want people to fool themselves by thinking this term is not offensive and negative. We have a responsibility to do our best on an article like the Santorum one, we affect real lives here, not like the article about Twinkies where no one gets hurt, we can potentially do incredible damage. We're not simply talking about one man's life anymore, but his children and anyone else who happens to have the same last name. The way we frame the article here at Wikipedia has a lot to do with how this is perceived in the world. People turn to Wikipedia for reliable information and look at Wikipedia as a reliable source itself. Simply playing fast and loose and without regard for how our actions work in the larger society is irresponsible and reckless. Again, its not a personal attack, just working to help others understand this more deeply. -- Avanu (talk)
 * Thank You!
 * I know, I know for sure. Really. But that is just the purpose of the POINT, that you should not demonstrate the bad implications of something by doing it. In fact you were not uncivil in your intentions, but in Czech Wikipedia You might got block just for cs:wp:NEKIT alone - that is wp:POINT here, that is for disruption of Wikipedia.
 * Doesn't matter :) right. It seems that ⌘macwhiz is not ofended and discussion is moving forward. :)
 * By the way, in the context he did made the comment, he was just making things stright. That the santorum was not codyfied for the slang there, but it was rather impersonification of Santorum to get the block... that is irrespective of whether santorum now got or did not get horrible meaning or irrespective of ⌘macwhiz's stance, that was just clarification whether argument of wnt might aply there.
 * Just me, I am not sure how to folow to respond to Gaccur now, because, there is so much of the text in between now, and it feels as if the discussion I had with him, was just diverted out. I can not just easily start it over and at the same time I feel the arguments of him were not right, but as long as I do not respond so it looks like it is just right and dead. I took quite an effort to write my arguments there above and I still think it is right, now it looks like wasted..--R e o + 09:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

==

Barnstar

 * I am very proud to get this one! Big thanks from --R e o + 11:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

.02
Good point on the santorum title/question/answer anomaly. Carbuncle should change the section title as well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * : -) Thanks for feedback R e o + 17:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"santorum" debate summary?
Reo On, as the editor who put together the talk page summary for the ongoing "santorum" article talk, would you consider an update to bring it up to speed on current content? I'm attempting to establish some credible consensus on several issues and your "summary" might be helpful in that regard. If you're not so inclined, perhaps consider a deletion? Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello JakeInJoisey, thanks to very kind proposal...., I think I created the summary just for that purpose and it would be nice to use it for it. Nevertheless, right now I am in the midst of writing crisis for my PhD thesis. I am supposed to submit it erly next weak and for good. I will be useless here for a time. Please do not hesistate to update it, be bold and redo the summary completelly, to fit your vision and your taste. It was meant that way from the begining ( I "advertised" it that way too), I wondered, why no one except me (and one single edit of someone else) did try to update it. I thought, probably, the summary is not that helpfull idea as I wanted. I think some summary of accepted points and in conensus, in this stage might be very helpfull. If I would have the time, I would use the floating box, to link from it to the closed debates in the archive too. Nonetheless, please do as you see fit. :). See you in twoo weaks (if the debate will be still ongoing). R e o + 08:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. The edit page for the template looks daunting to me and I don't think I should mess with it (though I might). That being said, I'll just leave it there for now and you can see what's transpiring upon your return to the article. I can assure you, based on the slow pace demonstrated thus far, the issue will still be ongoing in 2 weeks time.
 * I'm sure you'll be re-enervated upon the completion of your thesis...and good luck with that. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It has been a mess for years
I am straightening it out. Will put the basic content at the level of membrane. TCO (Reviews needed) 15:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. Actually it was the very original situation. I do not understand, why anyone wanted to separate it from the level of membrane to the (selective barrier) level only. (Or I think I do, but i do not agree with them, I think the reason was, that formally the DAB should not have any explanations in them). R e o + 15:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah...it is sad how snarled it was. I appreciate your thoughts to get it fixed.  We can't leave it the way it was.  It had all kinds of circular confusion and the like.  I wanted to write an article on expanded PTFE (the Gore invention in Gore-tex) and then I just found how confused this space was.  I did get polymer membrane deleted because it had zero content and the section in artifical was better.  And there were wierd things with talk pages going to different articles from what they were the talk of!  I'm not any evil person...just trying to make this whole thing make some sense.  I think how snarled it is discourages people from working in here.TCO (Reviews needed) 15:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * P.s. Biological membrane and cell membrane is confusing also.  :-(  TCO (Reviews needed) 15:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * : -) I see :). In this case the confussion is already offwiki - brought here by unexact deffinition of the terms, by unexact thought processes. See please my reaction in biologiacal membrane talk page. R e o + 15:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

F in plants and microbes
Can I use your biology smarts please? I am working on Fluorine towards an eventual Featured Article Candidacy. (Still some basic research going on, a month out from Peer Review and then a month out from FAC).

For the few plants that make fluoroacetate (or other fluorine comounds), why do they do so? Is it to TRY to kill animals that eat them (this does happen) or is that a byproduct and they just want to bind up the F to keep it from affecting their Ca regulatiuon?

Same question for microbes that make fluoroacetate? Why do they do it?

What about these few plants that make fluorinated fatty acids. Why? (what biological function is frovided, I know there is not a conscious decision!)

Why is fluoroacetate a poison? It is not an ionic fluoride, but has stable C-F bonds so would think the mechanism of poison would be totallhy different from NaF.

P.s. I realize maybe you have to look some of this up.

TCO (Reviews needed) 15:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm interesting question. Sorry for replying this way, but I don't know directly right now and unfortunatelly I am spending the time on Wikipedia now just a margiannally and I shall be working right now on my report for the grant agency. Hmm maybe,... might you repeat the question, if still relevant, about two weeks later, just to remind me? I will try to look into this :). Have a good time. R e o + 15:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No sweat. Go get funded!!!TCO (Reviews needed) 16:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions about Wikipedia & SuggestBot
Hi, we’ve been running a research experiment with SuggestBot and would like to ask you some questions about Wikipedia and SuggestBot. You can find more information and the questions on this page. It should take less than ten minutes to respond. We would greatly appreciate if you had the time to participate! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, just stopping by with a one-time reminder that we would really like to hear from you! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Carrier protein
Hello, I agree with you: AGF would have been a better choice here. Thanks for catching the slip. Widr (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * :-), ok. Have a good time. R e o + 14:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Łysohorsky
Thanks for the edit, I added the table to the Lach dialects article already so if you want to fine tune it more feel free - filelake shoe  &#xF0F6;   12:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, my pleasure :). For the purpose You showed me- it sems that the word to word translation is better here. (although czech people would not use the formulation v širokých rysech, they would sey analogy to generylly speking, its better to leave it be now, I think). Have a good time. --R e o + 13:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome
I couldn't figure that out either. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * :) ... probably some of the anons I reverted lately. ok, thx :) --R e o + 19:19, 14 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) 13:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Help
Can you translate this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceism to čeština please? Ahmadce (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind: deleted as spam and a bunch of other things. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note :-). I had had just enough time to have a look. I didn't want to go and judge the notability through sources myself, but it was clear to me, that before I would commit any of my time to it, I would have to yet see the notability clearly established. Well I did expect some form of deletion consideration (although I had extremely short peek on it) actually. Thanks and have a good time (both of You) --R e o + 16:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just promotional--it was a copyright violation as well... Drmies (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Your point about the Western Betrayal POV tag
You are quite correct that the Western Betrayal Article has large indications of POV "issues". Please bring some neutrality into this article and edit with confidence, this article is one of the many Wikipedia POV battlegrounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.247.74 (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:59, 26 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) 13:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Czech Republic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strana zelených (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Co-authorship offered; Re: Talk page "Injection fraction"
Happy New Year Mr. Skupa. My name is Leslie Beben. I am a 54 y/o white male, third generation Polish American. I am a physician assistant practicing cardiology and general medicine in Sumter, South Carolina, USA. As you can see from the article I have been editing Injection fraction since 2007. I simultaneously submitted this term to the US Library of Congress (Medicine). I usually bristle at editing of my work but find your edit thoughtful and balanced. I realize that original work is out of bounds within Wiki and have often skirted the edges of this policy. I was once kicked off of Wikipedia for three long and painful months due to this tendency. My grandchildren find this hilarious. I have documented Injection Fraction as widely as I know how and am presently pondering an invitation from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) to present this concept as an abstract at their next meeting. Your edit puts me in the peculiar position of inviting you to co-author on this (second) attempt. I think we write well together. If interested, please contact me at: Home: 5805 Brookland Drive, Sumter, SC, 29154 (803) 494-9596 lbeben@sc.rr.com Work: 540 Physicians Lane, Sumter, SC, 29150 (803) 778-1941 lbeben@sumtermedical.com -- Lbeben (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:33, 16 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) 13:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Your message regarding "Clickable map" on "Syrian civil war detailed map" talk page
Thank you for pointing out the problem. It is now fixed. Tradedia (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ohh, thank You .. I didn't dream about such fast improvement .. I actually believed it had been so for some reason with intent. Thank You. ;) R e o + 21:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:57, 20 February 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) 21:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
 * , primarily for an array of warship GAs.
 * , primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
 * , due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with, this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:
 * , whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
 * , whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
 * and, who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
 * , who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by : did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aril, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Funiculus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:11, 13 March 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) 15:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Francis of Assisi
For future reference the Catholic Encyclopaedia is in the public domain due to it's age so it's not a copyright issue to copy from that website - although of course we should still attribute. I've not restored the text as it wasn't appropriate anyway. Dpmuk (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank You for the info. I did not realize the PD status of CE. Thx. --R e o + 01:30, 23 March 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) 12:11, 18 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) 21:36, 16 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) 23:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)