Archives
|
|
Hello. I'm used to seeing you beat me to the save page button during RC patrol and generally agree with your assessments, but I just noticed something. On the "Amit mehra" article (I'm not linking it because I know it will be deleted), it was tagged with a prod tag which anyone,even the author is allowed to remove. It is CSD tags that article authors are not supposed to remove. The author is acting within policy by removing the prod tag. However, the article probably qualifies for CSD under WP:CSD#A7. 152.16.59.102 ( talk) 08:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
hi. One of the articles I submitted is not about me. I may have wrongly tagged it as I am new to this. Kindly do not delete it. Also the only place it has been published before is a MSN contribute page. So what do i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitmehra13 ( talk • contribs) 09:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your message of dialogue on this issue. This is an interesting paradox that you noted. Many people in official positions in government can and do exercise power with the stated end to weaken the institution. Sometimes they do this without stating so. This happens not just on the right but also on the left. On the last count, witness Mikhail Gorbachev. Some might call this working to undermine "the system," others might call this working towards change-from-within. Dogru144 ( talk) 13:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Why you think you can warn someone, I have no idea. Just maybe you are in the wrong. I will discuss it with you though. Completelyoverit ( talk) 07:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello OliverTwisted, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Nookii has been removed. It was removed by Hurrahhurray with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Hurrahhurray before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 20:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)( Learn how to opt out of these messages)
Thanks for fixing the title capitals typo - you just beat me too it. Ronnam ( talk) 07:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
right as I was doing it... :) good job. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 06:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the three PRODs have been deleted from The "Wahhabi" Myth (yours was the first) by the article's author and he wishes to start a discussion on the talk page. Over to you to decide what to do. Thanks, Esowteric+ Talk 16:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI - there is nothing that precludes adding a CSD tag after nominating an article for AfD as long as the article meets the criteria for CSD. I have gone ahead and reinstated the CSD tag. The article fails to meet WP:NOTE or WP:BIO. ttonyb ( talk) 05:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
You should have googled harder and have noticed the real name. I have closed the AFD and redirected to the proper page.-- Mixwell! Talk 21:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your message: apart from my addition of the title of the book, I simply tried to restructure the The "Wahhabi" Myth page without adding any new info. The references (apart from the book) were not my own, I simply formated them as references.
This was inserted before I became involved in editing this page. I have cut and pasted this from the edit history:
Revision as of 17:25, September 20, 2009
The "Wahhabi" Myth is a huge phenomina within the media has occurred where terrorist ideologies have been attributed to Saudi Arabia and the Salafi movement (Derogatarily referred to as "Wahhabism).[citation needed] I wish to analyse this and using evidence froma range of notable sources, PROVE that this is both factually inaccurate and propaganda from various sects within Islam that oppose the Salafi beliefs. To start with, the myth that Saudi Arabia is sponsering Al Qaeda is contradictory to the fact that Al qeda has waged a war against Saudi Arabia http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/09/13/brother-of-bin-laden-dies-in-saudi-arabia/ An al qeda operative recently tried to kill a prince of the saudi royal family http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8229581.stm There is much evidence that suggests the "wahhabi" stigma is nothing but a falacy, and much evidence can be generated to prove that this is nothing more than propaganda.[citation needed] References
My first edit was not until September 22 as is evidenced on the edit history page as well. I reiterate: apart from the addition of the book title and info I simply cleaned up the language, spelling and format. Supertouch( talk) 13:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks. I thought it showed some potential- great job expanding and improving it! The Dominator Talk Edits 16:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
..would you agree to changing this to a speedy delete? I think it's complete junk, frankly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
What cleanup do you think it needs? Looked a nice little stub to me. PamD (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
On a casual scan, there are several punctuation errors in the first few sentences, as well as a few other copyedit issues. If you are not familiar withWP:STYLE, don't worry. Someone who enjoys coyedit work will come by to fix it shortly. If you are interested in finishing the article, please note one section from the article: "Tseten Dolma (Tibetan:ཚེ་བརྟན་སྒྲོལ་མ།; Tibetan pinyin:Tseitain Zhoima; Wylie:tshe brtan sgrol ma; Chinese:才旦卓玛) is a Tibetan soprano. Born to a serf family in August 1 1937 in Shigatse, She was influenced by the Tibetan folk music when she was very young. In 1956, she first performed on stage. In 1958 she joined Shanghai Conservatory of Music,learning from professor Wang Pinsu. Since the 1960's, she served as the chairman of the Tibet Branch of the Chinese Musicians' Association, director and vice-chairman of CMA, deputy secretary of Bureau of Cultural Affairs of Tibet Autonomous Regional.[1].
In each case, there is a punctuation issue, and/or some syntax issues. Best regards. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't set out to find bad reviews on Brokencyde! I was initially trying to find references in reliable sources to bolster Crunkcore, as sources are pretty lacking. All I could find was reviews of Brokencyde, so I figured I'd add them. I can see why John McDonnell's comment isn't needed, even though it was in the Guardian music blog, but I thought the quote given to mtv.com by Alex Gaskarth was pretty interesting. It suggested by Brokencyde and other crunkcore bands get success despite being universally panned by music critics, which is an angle not covered by the article at the moment. Fences& Windows 15:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replied here
Thanks, and no hard feelings ;) -- Arkelweis ( talk) 10:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I find it very rude of your team to delete my page continuously. It is a notable organisation and it is credible yet I am being contradicted and the page gets deleted. Highly frustrating. Allowfellow ( talk) 03:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
(Seen at Graeme Bartlett's talk page) "Indefinate" does not mean "forever", it means that no time has been set. In practice this generally means "at least a year" but may be shorter. An indef blocked editor may appeal the block in the usual way where the block will be reviewed by an admin and the block lifted or maintained. Mjroots ( talk) 10:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies. I CSD'd the damned thing in error. Crafty ( talk) 08:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't vandalise the page. I corrected it. An I am not 'Continuously' vandalising. I am sorry if I upset you but pleasedont give me crap. I am helping and dont want to be penalised for every single change. 04wilsonm ( talk) 17:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't a non-notable DB tag, it was a spam tag. It does nothing but promote some entity and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. 98.248.33.198 ( talk) 04:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Article Rescue Barnstar | |
Thank you for your great work on removing copyvio, referencing, and improving the Sameera Aziz article. 7 06:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC) |
Why MY user subpage was deleted. I use it for my stats, so please could you restore it? Beeper ( talk) 04:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hullo, I have added a few links to the Virtual novel page and so taken out the Orphan tag on it. Hopefully a few more curious souls will find their way to it now. I feel affection for pages I have created and for all I know you may have been the only reader the page has had so far, which makes me a little sad. I will also try and improve the page more in the future. regards
PS A bit baffled by your impressive User page. I hope that this is right place to have left this message if not apologies. Am a bit of a duffer on the subtleties of Wiki netiquette. SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello OliverTwisted, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged ( Animal crossing alfonso) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! decltype ( talk) 12:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The term tiny lotus has many uses and meanings. to simply 'redirect to 'foot binding' is incomplete. please let me make a page with 6 or so internal link and a dozen external. please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinyoflotus ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
hey man made page for others to edit dont know much about this girl so i hoped some korean ppl would edit and add...but i know she needs a page Thomasstockton1985 ( talk) 04:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there! I replyed to your deletion request Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiroyoshi Ohashi imars ( talk) 13:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I just want to apology, if I have caused any inconveniences regarding the sources about the above named article. I had just made a small mistake regarding a secondary source about Marcus Aurelius in the article. I totally forgot to log in and I changed the source regarding Marcus Aurelius’ source book.
It was just an honest small mistake. I am at the moment, doing many articles for Wikipedia and sometimes when I am in Wikipedia, I forget to log in. Then I realize, I have to log in to add or update articles.
All the sources I have mentioned on Wikipedia regarding the above named article are reliable sources and all the information in the article is correct. If you want, you can put footnotes in the article.
Again my apologies for any inconveniences caused.
Anriz.
I have removed the dated PROD template from Huang An and listed the page at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 22. Your opinions on deletion are welcome there. Thanks, Cnilep ( talk) 00:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I have just converted the redirect into a disambiguation page with three blue links and two redlinks. The article can still be written at Huang An with the various entries of the dab page in a "See also" section, but I'd recommend writing the article with a disambiguated name, like Huang An (Chinese immortal) as I've seen other uses of the name pop up in various Google searches. The immortal's name might be currently the primary use of "Huang An", but that may change in a few years. Oh the redirect doesn't appear to be one of vanity (unless the novelist created the redirect himself, it's not vanity, for Huang Yi's more "familiar" pen name is Huang An). 147.70.242.54 ( talk) 18:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi - fyi, the COI/autobio author of Jesse Lauter just blanked the page and I have tagged as db-author. I wanted to give you a heads-up because you had done so much cleanup work on it, so feel free to undo his blanking if you feel the article should stay. Thanks. 7 08:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
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 Nettrom ( talk), 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) 11:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. MBisanz talk 02:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Please take the Studio 54 vandal to WP:AIV. You have all the details. Page protection may be in order after seeing the constant battle for months. -- mboverload @ 01:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, the situation has been partially settled. It's my own fault, for being a jerk, but after 8 months I was ready for some closure on this incident regarding one vandal who was consuming virtually all of the time I have available to devote to Wikipedia. Perhaps I should have not taken my frustration out in such a visible way... but the vandalism board needs to be viewed for what it is, a place to report vandalism, rather than editors being treated as if they are tattling to the teacher.
I tried doing everything by the guidelines... the templates, the warnings, the explanations, the CSD board, the AFD board, the vandalism board. The user was blocked once, blocked twice. The user, however, has a single purpose, whether right or wrong, and that is to convince the world that Billy Smith changed his name to Billy Amato, that he owned Studio 54, that he launched the career of Madonna, among other claims I won't address here... all without one single reliable source. He may be completely on target, his information may be valid, but he will not provide a source, he will not communicate with anyone about the situation, he removes all warnings using an alternate account, and continues on with the dogged determination of someone who will not be deterred by a simple warning or a simple block, and he does this for 8 consecutive months... and though I have demonstrated this to various admins at various times, over and over... people helpfully point out that it "has" to be on this board, or that board, or the other board... or it has to be at this time, or that time, or another time. I had already been to all those boards, and I don't have the time to check Wikipedia every hour, so that my reports aren't "stale."
The time had come, (the walrus said) to work on other things. So, I blew a gasket in public, and begged for an admin to take pity on poor pitiful me, and fix the situation. Not the best performance of my life. But, someone else, someone with the ability to track this if I don't log into Wikipedia every day, will now be my partner, where none were willing to be before. So, to any who took offense, I apologize. But, no lie, I really... have other things to do with my time. I shall now yield the soapbox, and step down. ;0) -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 08:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
(re-installed after new user deleted formatting when trying to add comment)
You can tell, I'm obviously new here. I'll get a source (i.e website with photo and proof of cultural impact) and add that to the sources. I think the fact that a DJ who was in 54's booth during the 80's doesn't have a page either, shows that a person could do something to warrant a footnote and not a whole page. Mr. Cashman may not have the stuff for a whole page but, I believe, and I'll show a source, that he deserves the recognition for this page. Again, I thank you for your time. Next time I edit the section I'll add something to the source page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adiscohistory (talk • contribs) 03:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've rearranged Amrik Virdi a bit, removed bogus references, and have put the one genuine reference inline - so I have removed the BLP PROD template. (I've no idea if the guy is sufficiently notable for an article, but I guess the presence of one ref is enough to avoid BLP PROD) -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 10:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, I started trying to fix it, but I guess I didn't do a good enough job. :) Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 06:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
...is seeing some activity, again, from your IP friend. Happy days, Drmies ( talk) 04:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Remember what you were doing in 2005? Drmies ( talk) 01:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Drmies ( talk) 23:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there,
I've noticed that you wrote things about George Lambie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lambie
Did you know the guy? I would be grateful if you could help me find things about him (I am a soccer writer by the way).
Thanks,
Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apostolo3 ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
You might want to comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikAdvisor. I have opened an SPI regarding that IP.-- Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 04:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 01:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
WikAdvisor has been indef blocked by Dennis Brown. I thought i'd give you the heads up.-- Anderson - what's up? 06:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
RE the two revisions to the lines regarding Ayotte's position on Minimum Wage. Thank you for realizing the word unnecessary was not part of what was written and I agree that if it was it would not have followed the NPOV, but i disagree with your opinion that "burden" is subjective in this case as an automatic increase in minimum wage would increase costs for employers and that would be a burden (again I am not saying unnecessary just the fact that it would be a burden). Additionally there is no explanation as to why you removed the edit on the following line. It is simply written as a statement of what she believes in - letting employers make decisions regarding benefits and paid sick leave - instead of what she doesn't believe in - forcing employers to provide paid sick leave.
Lastly, the article that is used as the source for this leaves quite a bit to be desired and the newspaper (The Nashua Telegraph) is not known for great journalism; pandering to whoever they like in an election more than anything else.
Below if the verbatim from the Nashua Telegraph Article:
"Hodes endorsed raising the minimum wage to include increases in cost-of-living, giving unions the option of organizing by collecting names of supporters rather than through a secret ballot vote and mandating employers offer paid sick leave to their workers. Ayotte opposed all three proposed changes in federal labor laws."
TiminNH TiminNH ( talk) 04:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I posted this to JS's page, but for some reason he didn't want to you see it, taking care to delete it silently [6]:
as he seems to do with previous 3RR warnings William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I dropped by User talk:178.37.82.83 to add a note about stub tags and am puzzled by your two notices about edit warring - the IP only has 4 edits to its record, and no repeated edits. Are you confusing it with another editor, or assuming it to be the same person as another IP? Pam D 14:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That "rule" is by no means as categorical and rigid as you seem to imply. In any case, you're kind of missing the point -- "which signals" is just wrong introducing a relative clause. The alternative to "whose signals" would actually be "the signals of which..." -- AnonMoos ( talk) 08:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I was looking at the exchange which ended at this and it seems strange to me. StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 07:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's one of the other things. I don't find it difficult to refute weak arguments. If someone says there's no reliable source, I can toss reliable sources at them. If someone specifies a policy that, in fact, has nothing to do with the issue, I can point out why.
What I find difficult is getting people to even make an argument as opposed to express a preference. Worse, when there a few people with the same preference, they seem even less motivated to make an argument. Instead, they reinforce each other's preferences and start claiming consensus. The silliest part is when they claim consensus itself as the reason, as if the consensus had been handed down from above. And when you ask a direct question, one tactic is for them to just ignore you and wait for the section to go away.
Now, all of this is particularly obvious on Paul Ryan because of the nature of the article and the circumstances around it. It's a certainty that certain of the editors are paid political workers; I have my suspicions. It's a certainty that many of the unpaid editors are extreme partisans who just want Ryan to look good; these are obvious. I've seen all this and more on Mitt Romney, only slightly more calmly. StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 07:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I am also concerned with the use of tools meant for undoing vandalism being used to revert good faith edits. I apologise for posting here. If you feel this post was made in error, please state why here if you wish or delete this message to acknowledge seeing it.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
1st revert - Undid revision 508113178 by Amadscientist.
2nd revert - Reverted good faith edit(s) by 82.57.155.240 using STiki Use of Stiki for non vandal revert.
3rd revert - Reverted good faith edit(s) by 86.148.94.111 using STiki Use of Stiki for non vandal revert.
4th revert - Reverted good faith edit(s) by 75.3.240.145 using STiki Use of Stiki for non vandal revert.
5th revert - Reverted good faith edit(s) by 166.250.33.203 using STiki Use of Stiki for non vandal revert.
Under normal circunstances, using tools to revert good faith contributions is not allowed. I am unclear if this applies with good faith reverts or not using Stiki, but even when reverting with a tool that could possibly allow good faith reverts, it is still a revert of a non vandal contribution faling under the same rules of reverting more than 3 times for non vandal editing within a 24hr period. You are at 5.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 04:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You have become non-objective when it comes to me. You have indulged in gross exaggerations or falsehoods, under the guise of rational discourse, as well as indulging in personal provocations on multiple occasions over the last week: By the way...a big issue here is an editor who claims to be reverting anyone who deletes something from HP. here (false, no diffs shown, nothing of the kind was ever said), Maybe you wish to call attention to my being a (removed) and suggest that has some bearing on it? Perhaps my interest and work in musical theatre? I did Oliver last summer, is that it? here (false, never made any personal accusations, period, nor was it shown that I had), and Are you CHALLENGINMG me to revert? Wow...that takes some balls. LOL! here (antagonistic, chauvinistic, and not appropriate on a talk page). You argue with me for the sake of arguing, even when we are agreeing on something one example here. I feel that all conversation is stymied when you invoke "consensus" which is not present, and every time I point out it isn't present, you disrupt the page with the dogged determination of someone who has lost all neutrality and focus. I believe you need to disengage from me presently, for these reasons stated above. Further personal harassment by you will be documented more clearly, and taken to the appropriate venue. I will not be bullied into silence, and I have not violated the 3RR rule. This too falls under the category of gross exaggeration or patent falsehood. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no such policy for 1RRx5 a revert under 3RR is any page: A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.
The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts operated by one editor count together. Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.
Since you feel objectivity is lost and you are being bullied, I shall discontinue discussion here and simply state that you take responsbility for your actions using Stiki and most follow policy and guidelines. I'll file formal report. Thank you.-- Amadscientist( talk) 06:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I see what you are saying, that the 3RR is "limited" to a single article or page with 4 reverts to be a vioation. So that warning given to another the other day was false, only 3RR violations count when reverts are being made on a single page. Is this correct?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I've asked you (Amadscientist) to disengage from me. I'm now stating it officially. Take it to the 3RR board if you think you have a case. If you have something else to accuse me of, then the next item posted from you on my user talk page should be an official notice, or I won't expect a visit from you again. You are currently dominating my entire Wikipedia experience, and not in a good way. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
By all means, focus on what interests you. The apology would not be for you, really, but rather for him. StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 07:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
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.
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:
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:
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) 12:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Archives
|
|
Hello. I'm used to seeing you beat me to the save page button during RC patrol and generally agree with your assessments, but I just noticed something. On the "Amit mehra" article (I'm not linking it because I know it will be deleted), it was tagged with a prod tag which anyone,even the author is allowed to remove. It is CSD tags that article authors are not supposed to remove. The author is acting within policy by removing the prod tag. However, the article probably qualifies for CSD under WP:CSD#A7. 152.16.59.102 ( talk) 08:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
hi. One of the articles I submitted is not about me. I may have wrongly tagged it as I am new to this. Kindly do not delete it. Also the only place it has been published before is a MSN contribute page. So what do i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitmehra13 ( talk • contribs) 09:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your message of dialogue on this issue. This is an interesting paradox that you noted. Many people in official positions in government can and do exercise power with the stated end to weaken the institution. Sometimes they do this without stating so. This happens not just on the right but also on the left. On the last count, witness Mikhail Gorbachev. Some might call this working to undermine "the system," others might call this working towards change-from-within. Dogru144 ( talk) 13:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Why you think you can warn someone, I have no idea. Just maybe you are in the wrong. I will discuss it with you though. Completelyoverit ( talk) 07:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello OliverTwisted, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Nookii has been removed. It was removed by Hurrahhurray with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Hurrahhurray before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 20:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)( Learn how to opt out of these messages)
Thanks for fixing the title capitals typo - you just beat me too it. Ronnam ( talk) 07:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
right as I was doing it... :) good job. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 06:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the three PRODs have been deleted from The "Wahhabi" Myth (yours was the first) by the article's author and he wishes to start a discussion on the talk page. Over to you to decide what to do. Thanks, Esowteric+ Talk 16:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI - there is nothing that precludes adding a CSD tag after nominating an article for AfD as long as the article meets the criteria for CSD. I have gone ahead and reinstated the CSD tag. The article fails to meet WP:NOTE or WP:BIO. ttonyb ( talk) 05:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
You should have googled harder and have noticed the real name. I have closed the AFD and redirected to the proper page.-- Mixwell! Talk 21:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your message: apart from my addition of the title of the book, I simply tried to restructure the The "Wahhabi" Myth page without adding any new info. The references (apart from the book) were not my own, I simply formated them as references.
This was inserted before I became involved in editing this page. I have cut and pasted this from the edit history:
Revision as of 17:25, September 20, 2009
The "Wahhabi" Myth is a huge phenomina within the media has occurred where terrorist ideologies have been attributed to Saudi Arabia and the Salafi movement (Derogatarily referred to as "Wahhabism).[citation needed] I wish to analyse this and using evidence froma range of notable sources, PROVE that this is both factually inaccurate and propaganda from various sects within Islam that oppose the Salafi beliefs. To start with, the myth that Saudi Arabia is sponsering Al Qaeda is contradictory to the fact that Al qeda has waged a war against Saudi Arabia http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/09/13/brother-of-bin-laden-dies-in-saudi-arabia/ An al qeda operative recently tried to kill a prince of the saudi royal family http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8229581.stm There is much evidence that suggests the "wahhabi" stigma is nothing but a falacy, and much evidence can be generated to prove that this is nothing more than propaganda.[citation needed] References
My first edit was not until September 22 as is evidenced on the edit history page as well. I reiterate: apart from the addition of the book title and info I simply cleaned up the language, spelling and format. Supertouch( talk) 13:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks. I thought it showed some potential- great job expanding and improving it! The Dominator Talk Edits 16:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
..would you agree to changing this to a speedy delete? I think it's complete junk, frankly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
What cleanup do you think it needs? Looked a nice little stub to me. PamD (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
On a casual scan, there are several punctuation errors in the first few sentences, as well as a few other copyedit issues. If you are not familiar withWP:STYLE, don't worry. Someone who enjoys coyedit work will come by to fix it shortly. If you are interested in finishing the article, please note one section from the article: "Tseten Dolma (Tibetan:ཚེ་བརྟན་སྒྲོལ་མ།; Tibetan pinyin:Tseitain Zhoima; Wylie:tshe brtan sgrol ma; Chinese:才旦卓玛) is a Tibetan soprano. Born to a serf family in August 1 1937 in Shigatse, She was influenced by the Tibetan folk music when she was very young. In 1956, she first performed on stage. In 1958 she joined Shanghai Conservatory of Music,learning from professor Wang Pinsu. Since the 1960's, she served as the chairman of the Tibet Branch of the Chinese Musicians' Association, director and vice-chairman of CMA, deputy secretary of Bureau of Cultural Affairs of Tibet Autonomous Regional.[1].
In each case, there is a punctuation issue, and/or some syntax issues. Best regards. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't set out to find bad reviews on Brokencyde! I was initially trying to find references in reliable sources to bolster Crunkcore, as sources are pretty lacking. All I could find was reviews of Brokencyde, so I figured I'd add them. I can see why John McDonnell's comment isn't needed, even though it was in the Guardian music blog, but I thought the quote given to mtv.com by Alex Gaskarth was pretty interesting. It suggested by Brokencyde and other crunkcore bands get success despite being universally panned by music critics, which is an angle not covered by the article at the moment. Fences& Windows 15:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replied here
Thanks, and no hard feelings ;) -- Arkelweis ( talk) 10:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I find it very rude of your team to delete my page continuously. It is a notable organisation and it is credible yet I am being contradicted and the page gets deleted. Highly frustrating. Allowfellow ( talk) 03:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
(Seen at Graeme Bartlett's talk page) "Indefinate" does not mean "forever", it means that no time has been set. In practice this generally means "at least a year" but may be shorter. An indef blocked editor may appeal the block in the usual way where the block will be reviewed by an admin and the block lifted or maintained. Mjroots ( talk) 10:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies. I CSD'd the damned thing in error. Crafty ( talk) 08:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't vandalise the page. I corrected it. An I am not 'Continuously' vandalising. I am sorry if I upset you but pleasedont give me crap. I am helping and dont want to be penalised for every single change. 04wilsonm ( talk) 17:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't a non-notable DB tag, it was a spam tag. It does nothing but promote some entity and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. 98.248.33.198 ( talk) 04:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Article Rescue Barnstar | |
Thank you for your great work on removing copyvio, referencing, and improving the Sameera Aziz article. 7 06:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC) |
Why MY user subpage was deleted. I use it for my stats, so please could you restore it? Beeper ( talk) 04:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hullo, I have added a few links to the Virtual novel page and so taken out the Orphan tag on it. Hopefully a few more curious souls will find their way to it now. I feel affection for pages I have created and for all I know you may have been the only reader the page has had so far, which makes me a little sad. I will also try and improve the page more in the future. regards
PS A bit baffled by your impressive User page. I hope that this is right place to have left this message if not apologies. Am a bit of a duffer on the subtleties of Wiki netiquette. SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello OliverTwisted, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged ( Animal crossing alfonso) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! decltype ( talk) 12:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The term tiny lotus has many uses and meanings. to simply 'redirect to 'foot binding' is incomplete. please let me make a page with 6 or so internal link and a dozen external. please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinyoflotus ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
hey man made page for others to edit dont know much about this girl so i hoped some korean ppl would edit and add...but i know she needs a page Thomasstockton1985 ( talk) 04:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there! I replyed to your deletion request Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiroyoshi Ohashi imars ( talk) 13:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I just want to apology, if I have caused any inconveniences regarding the sources about the above named article. I had just made a small mistake regarding a secondary source about Marcus Aurelius in the article. I totally forgot to log in and I changed the source regarding Marcus Aurelius’ source book.
It was just an honest small mistake. I am at the moment, doing many articles for Wikipedia and sometimes when I am in Wikipedia, I forget to log in. Then I realize, I have to log in to add or update articles.
All the sources I have mentioned on Wikipedia regarding the above named article are reliable sources and all the information in the article is correct. If you want, you can put footnotes in the article.
Again my apologies for any inconveniences caused.
Anriz.
I have removed the dated PROD template from Huang An and listed the page at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 22. Your opinions on deletion are welcome there. Thanks, Cnilep ( talk) 00:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I have just converted the redirect into a disambiguation page with three blue links and two redlinks. The article can still be written at Huang An with the various entries of the dab page in a "See also" section, but I'd recommend writing the article with a disambiguated name, like Huang An (Chinese immortal) as I've seen other uses of the name pop up in various Google searches. The immortal's name might be currently the primary use of "Huang An", but that may change in a few years. Oh the redirect doesn't appear to be one of vanity (unless the novelist created the redirect himself, it's not vanity, for Huang Yi's more "familiar" pen name is Huang An). 147.70.242.54 ( talk) 18:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi - fyi, the COI/autobio author of Jesse Lauter just blanked the page and I have tagged as db-author. I wanted to give you a heads-up because you had done so much cleanup work on it, so feel free to undo his blanking if you feel the article should stay. Thanks. 7 08:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
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 Nettrom ( talk), 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) 11:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. MBisanz talk 02:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Please take the Studio 54 vandal to WP:AIV. You have all the details. Page protection may be in order after seeing the constant battle for months. -- mboverload @ 01:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, the situation has been partially settled. It's my own fault, for being a jerk, but after 8 months I was ready for some closure on this incident regarding one vandal who was consuming virtually all of the time I have available to devote to Wikipedia. Perhaps I should have not taken my frustration out in such a visible way... but the vandalism board needs to be viewed for what it is, a place to report vandalism, rather than editors being treated as if they are tattling to the teacher.
I tried doing everything by the guidelines... the templates, the warnings, the explanations, the CSD board, the AFD board, the vandalism board. The user was blocked once, blocked twice. The user, however, has a single purpose, whether right or wrong, and that is to convince the world that Billy Smith changed his name to Billy Amato, that he owned Studio 54, that he launched the career of Madonna, among other claims I won't address here... all without one single reliable source. He may be completely on target, his information may be valid, but he will not provide a source, he will not communicate with anyone about the situation, he removes all warnings using an alternate account, and continues on with the dogged determination of someone who will not be deterred by a simple warning or a simple block, and he does this for 8 consecutive months... and though I have demonstrated this to various admins at various times, over and over... people helpfully point out that it "has" to be on this board, or that board, or the other board... or it has to be at this time, or that time, or another time. I had already been to all those boards, and I don't have the time to check Wikipedia every hour, so that my reports aren't "stale."
The time had come, (the walrus said) to work on other things. So, I blew a gasket in public, and begged for an admin to take pity on poor pitiful me, and fix the situation. Not the best performance of my life. But, someone else, someone with the ability to track this if I don't log into Wikipedia every day, will now be my partner, where none were willing to be before. So, to any who took offense, I apologize. But, no lie, I really... have other things to do with my time. I shall now yield the soapbox, and step down. ;0) -- Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 08:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
(re-installed after new user deleted formatting when trying to add comment)
You can tell, I'm obviously new here. I'll get a source (i.e website with photo and proof of cultural impact) and add that to the sources. I think the fact that a DJ who was in 54's booth during the 80's doesn't have a page either, shows that a person could do something to warrant a footnote and not a whole page. Mr. Cashman may not have the stuff for a whole page but, I believe, and I'll show a source, that he deserves the recognition for this page. Again, I thank you for your time. Next time I edit the section I'll add something to the source page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adiscohistory (talk • contribs) 03:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've rearranged Amrik Virdi a bit, removed bogus references, and have put the one genuine reference inline - so I have removed the BLP PROD template. (I've no idea if the guy is sufficiently notable for an article, but I guess the presence of one ref is enough to avoid BLP PROD) -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 10:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, I started trying to fix it, but I guess I didn't do a good enough job. :) Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 06:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
...is seeing some activity, again, from your IP friend. Happy days, Drmies ( talk) 04:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Remember what you were doing in 2005? Drmies ( talk) 01:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Drmies ( talk) 23:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there,
I've noticed that you wrote things about George Lambie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lambie
Did you know the guy? I would be grateful if you could help me find things about him (I am a soccer writer by the way).
Thanks,
Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apostolo3 ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
You might want to comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikAdvisor. I have opened an SPI regarding that IP.-- Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 04:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 01:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
WikAdvisor has been indef blocked by Dennis Brown. I thought i'd give you the heads up.-- Anderson - what's up? 06:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
RE the two revisions to the lines regarding Ayotte's position on Minimum Wage. Thank you for realizing the word unnecessary was not part of what was written and I agree that if it was it would not have followed the NPOV, but i disagree with your opinion that "burden" is subjective in this case as an automatic increase in minimum wage would increase costs for employers and that would be a burden (again I am not saying unnecessary just the fact that it would be a burden). Additionally there is no explanation as to why you removed the edit on the following line. It is simply written as a statement of what she believes in - letting employers make decisions regarding benefits and paid sick leave - instead of what she doesn't believe in - forcing employers to provide paid sick leave.
Lastly, the article that is used as the source for this leaves quite a bit to be desired and the newspaper (The Nashua Telegraph) is not known for great journalism; pandering to whoever they like in an election more than anything else.
Below if the verbatim from the Nashua Telegraph Article:
"Hodes endorsed raising the minimum wage to include increases in cost-of-living, giving unions the option of organizing by collecting names of supporters rather than through a secret ballot vote and mandating employers offer paid sick leave to their workers. Ayotte opposed all three proposed changes in federal labor laws."
TiminNH TiminNH ( talk) 04:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I posted this to JS's page, but for some reason he didn't want to you see it, taking care to delete it silently [6]:
as he seems to do with previous 3RR warnings William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I dropped by User talk:178.37.82.83 to add a note about stub tags and am puzzled by your two notices about edit warring - the IP only has 4 edits to its record, and no repeated edits. Are you confusing it with another editor, or assuming it to be the same person as another IP? Pam D 14:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That "rule" is by no means as categorical and rigid as you seem to imply. In any case, you're kind of missing the point -- "which signals" is just wrong introducing a relative clause. The alternative to "whose signals" would actually be "the signals of which..." -- AnonMoos ( talk) 08:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I was looking at the exchange which ended at this and it seems strange to me. StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 07:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's one of the other things. I don't find it difficult to refute weak arguments. If someone says there's no reliable source, I can toss reliable sources at them. If someone specifies a policy that, in fact, has nothing to do with the issue, I can point out why.
What I find difficult is getting people to even make an argument as opposed to express a preference. Worse, when there a few people with the same preference, they seem even less motivated to make an argument. Instead, they reinforce each other's preferences and start claiming consensus. The silliest part is when they claim consensus itself as the reason, as if the consensus had been handed down from above. And when you ask a direct question, one tactic is for them to just ignore you and wait for the section to go away.
Now, all of this is particularly obvious on Paul Ryan because of the nature of the article and the circumstances around it. It's a certainty that certain of the editors are paid political workers; I have my suspicions. It's a certainty that many of the unpaid editors are extreme partisans who just want Ryan to look good; these are obvious. I've seen all this and more on Mitt Romney, only slightly more calmly. StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 07:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I am also concerned with the use of tools meant for undoing vandalism being used to revert good faith edits. I apologise for posting here. If you feel this post was made in error, please state why here if you wish or delete this message to acknowledge seeing it.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
1st revert - Undid revision 508113178 by Amadscientist.
2nd revert - Reverted good faith edit(s) by 82.57.155.240 using STiki Use of Stiki for non vandal revert.
3rd revert - Reverted good faith edit(s) by 86.148.94.111 using STiki Use of Stiki for non vandal revert.
4th revert - Reverted good faith edit(s) by 75.3.240.145 using STiki Use of Stiki for non vandal revert.
5th revert - Reverted good faith edit(s) by 166.250.33.203 using STiki Use of Stiki for non vandal revert.
Under normal circunstances, using tools to revert good faith contributions is not allowed. I am unclear if this applies with good faith reverts or not using Stiki, but even when reverting with a tool that could possibly allow good faith reverts, it is still a revert of a non vandal contribution faling under the same rules of reverting more than 3 times for non vandal editing within a 24hr period. You are at 5.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 04:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You have become non-objective when it comes to me. You have indulged in gross exaggerations or falsehoods, under the guise of rational discourse, as well as indulging in personal provocations on multiple occasions over the last week: By the way...a big issue here is an editor who claims to be reverting anyone who deletes something from HP. here (false, no diffs shown, nothing of the kind was ever said), Maybe you wish to call attention to my being a (removed) and suggest that has some bearing on it? Perhaps my interest and work in musical theatre? I did Oliver last summer, is that it? here (false, never made any personal accusations, period, nor was it shown that I had), and Are you CHALLENGINMG me to revert? Wow...that takes some balls. LOL! here (antagonistic, chauvinistic, and not appropriate on a talk page). You argue with me for the sake of arguing, even when we are agreeing on something one example here. I feel that all conversation is stymied when you invoke "consensus" which is not present, and every time I point out it isn't present, you disrupt the page with the dogged determination of someone who has lost all neutrality and focus. I believe you need to disengage from me presently, for these reasons stated above. Further personal harassment by you will be documented more clearly, and taken to the appropriate venue. I will not be bullied into silence, and I have not violated the 3RR rule. This too falls under the category of gross exaggeration or patent falsehood. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no such policy for 1RRx5 a revert under 3RR is any page: A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.
The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts operated by one editor count together. Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.
Since you feel objectivity is lost and you are being bullied, I shall discontinue discussion here and simply state that you take responsbility for your actions using Stiki and most follow policy and guidelines. I'll file formal report. Thank you.-- Amadscientist( talk) 06:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I see what you are saying, that the 3RR is "limited" to a single article or page with 4 reverts to be a vioation. So that warning given to another the other day was false, only 3RR violations count when reverts are being made on a single page. Is this correct?-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I've asked you (Amadscientist) to disengage from me. I'm now stating it officially. Take it to the 3RR board if you think you have a case. If you have something else to accuse me of, then the next item posted from you on my user talk page should be an official notice, or I won't expect a visit from you again. You are currently dominating my entire Wikipedia experience, and not in a good way. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
By all means, focus on what interests you. The apology would not be for you, really, but rather for him. StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 07:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
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.
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:
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:
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) 12:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)