This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
To all editors: Let the reader decide, given all the various ways of looking at things, don't try and decide what is true, we are not good at it. Please copy this comment to more general Wikipedia forum, I am not familiar with those aspects of the wiki community, but I believe this needs to be addressed.
Most recent example: editors insists on keeping false data in Space Warfare article solar panels efficiency claims. Space solar panels are 30% efficient, not 5-18%. Spectrolab makes and sells them, that's not a good enough reference? Somehow my doing some simple calculations comparing the needed size to the ISS solar panels is "bad" original work, but the rest of the entire section, which is un referenced, is not?
Wiki worked great when you let the user decide what were "reliable sources" now you have taken that choice away. You have taken the "wiki" out of Wikipedia, it's not the quick collaborative encyclopedia anymore, it some attempt to find the one and only "truth".
What is a "reliable source"? Not the one Wiki claims. Not peer reviewed.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-peer-review4.htm not good at finding errors
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/245503-The-Corruption-of-Science-How-Corporations-Like-Monsanto-Have-Hijacked-Higher-Education What's more, a broader look at all corporate agricultural research, $7.4 billion in 2006, dwarfs the mere $5.7 billion in all public funding of agricultural research spent the same year.
Peer reviewed does no mean correct. Most peer reviewed papers eventually turn out to be wrong, that's progress, . Go read a bunch of Nature papers from the 1940's: Mostly wrong ideas, bad methodology, bad conclusions.
Nature does a good job, and they are still wrong, that's science.
The misunderstanding of the significance of peer reviewed
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-peer-review4.htm
Unless it's one of a handful of top journals it really means almost nothing, yet it might be the next big thing.
Not that there aren't great papers and report of great experiments, it's just that the mere fact of being peer reviewed has nothing to do with that.
Science is about the experiments and theories and then the testing of the theories by replication by other scientists. The journals were just a way to publish
http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review_failure
Now with the internet, it's not really necessary
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0010.107?rgn=main;view=fulltext pro peer review but modified
You should not even allow references to for pay articles, it completely defeats the purpose. If a pay reference is used, it can only duplicate an unpaid ref, how will anyone afford to check all the paid refs? Just say need unpaid reference.
Is Government a "reliable Source"? Nope.
Example: The cost of electricity article you believe the DOE is a "reliable Source" You believe the government agencies repeatedly accused and found to be captive to the fossils and nuclear industry. I ask the editors: what cost of solar panels did the DOE sited numbers use? Search for it, and you will learn that the DOE doesn't take solar seriously, they hired a consulting firm to give them numbers without and backup data. solar panels on the world spot market on are 50-70 cents, but the DOE uses much higher numbers. They also assume a 15 year life for panels that last at least 40 years.
Do you believe the gov on everything else it says? In fact, is there any reason to believe the gov at all?
I know you want some sort of truth, that is believable, but there is no single immutable truth about much of anything.
Stop this editing out of everything that does not come from the gov or a peer reviewed source, that's not truth, it's not science, it is not encyclopedic. There are differences of opinion, and hidden agendas all over the place, you can't tell which ones are correct, you MUST leave it to the readers.
I want every crazy theory referenced in every article. We can put the "most popular" view first, but we need comprehensive articles, no one takes Wikipedia articles or ANY encyclopedia articles as "truth" anyway, they are not primary references. We used to do this. Let's do it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.79.104 ( talk) 07:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Seahorse. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I had to undo your edit in order to remove some nonsense that had been added earlier. Nothing personal. Roundtheworld ( talk) 08:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi I request you to add the following hyperlink{ http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Panchayudha_Stotram] as a source of with reference to Pancha Ayudham in the "Vishnu" page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirtuh ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear FenixFeather,
WP:MOS/Film states that we should descrivbe how the film performed in a retrospective, not a historical way. Therefore this: "During its nineteenth weekend of release, Frozen surpassed Toy Story 3 in the worldwide box office, becoming the highest-grossing animated film of all time." should simply be stated as "Frozen is the highest-grossing animated film worldwide". Furthermore, it is logical to compare Frozen with other Walt Disney Animation Studios films or other animated films in general, but comparing it to Disney and Pixar films is definitely WP:INDISCRIMINATE. WP:MOS/Film also states that editors should "Avoid indexical terminology such as "domestic" [...] and [...] "international"." Such terminology includes the word "foreign". We should be specific and state "the film's debut outside the US and Canada" or "outside North America".
Concerning the part stating that Frozen is a "Walt Disney Pictures release", just read these three Wikipedia articles: The Walt Disney Studios (division), Walt Disney Animation Studios, Walt Disney Pictures. The first clearly states in the infobox that Walt Disney Pictures and Walt Disney Animation Studios are separate divisions. The division of Disney that releases films is called Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures.
Furthermore, in my edit I updated the film's ranking in some categories and corrected a grammatical error "(five-day opening of $14.1 million)and Russia and the CIS", where the word "and" was not necessary (not to mention it was stuck onto the brackets). So I would like to ask kindly that the next time you disagree with part of my edit, please only change that specific part instead of the whole thing.
Thank you in advance. Spinc5 ( talk) 16:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Water fluoridation controversy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
We don't know exactly what his motive to drive so far to kill three white/non-jewish people is.
For all we know this could be motivated by his pagansim.
so it gets two words (that very light).
And the source is solid otherwise I wouldn't write this about a living person.
Check it out.
-- 107.199.68.228 ( talk) 05:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry getting tied, thought you should know everyone involved in the shootings religion seems to matter so that's what the categories are at the bottom. -- 107.199.68.228 ( talk) 05:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Italic text
Hi Fenix these days i am seeing lot of mischevious edits to Vishnu page. I requestank you to move the article to 'semi-protected'. so that it can be protected from mischevious vandalism.
Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirtuh ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Unified Modeling Language. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi! You removed one of my links, about Riot. Can i please ask you some more info? I'm a noob in wikipedia, and every modify i make, some guy starting to undo it. and he didnțt let me any message. I have no idea how to get in touch with him. Can tou please help me? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwargolak ( talk • contribs) 21:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for responding man. the problem is i have no idea what to do. I modified 3-4 articles by adding one link to my blogs, which treated the subject. I mean in hannover page i write hannover blog and linked to my blog. the same with the mouse (linked to my post). but i see that man removed my modification on romanian page as well (im romanian and he's german), so whats his problem? can we talk via e-mail please? i have no idea here where to write person to person message. anyway my e-mail adress is vasile_francisc@yahoo.com
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwargolak ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
ah reply is on edit button. i had no idea. but i undertand whats wrong. but if i will make a new page for a smartphone company, i can put the links i want rigt? its my page, so i can do whatever i want (the links are related to the company). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwargolak ( talk • contribs) 23:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Circumcision. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Heartbleed". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 17:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Cyberbullying_over_article_about_Anita_Sarkeesian— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 23:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar | ||
For your quick and timely action to create a great graphic representation of the Heartbleed bug when it was needed most. Cheers, ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 06:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC) |
Hi there! The IP is nothing more than a troll. He's been blocked numerous times but uses proxies to jump IPs and avoid bans etc. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 23:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi FenixFeather, In [1], you have changed "Attackers in this way could receive sensitive data, compromising the confidentiality of the victim's communications with other parties." back to "Attackers in this way could receive sensitive data, compromising the security of the victim's communications.", justifying with ' "Other parties" is confusing and makes it seem like this has implications for security outside of the current communication.'. I haven't restored this change yet, but would you mind clarifying what you meant? How can "other parties" be confusing? This does have implications for security outside of the current communication, hence the gravity. -- Chealer ( talk) 20:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, You removed a request for reference on Heartbleed justifying "Holy shit, why do you have to edit war over ever single tiny thing? RTFM. It says clearly the the default clib malloc() (memory allocator) has protections against countermeasures. Please don't edit if you don't read the sources." Which sources are you referring to? By "clib", I assume you mean libc? -- Chealer ( talk) 21:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
But around that time OpenSSL adds a wrapper around malloc & free so that the library will cache memory on it's own, and not free it to the protective malloc.
You can find the comment in their sources ...
- ifndef OPENSSL_NO_BUF_FREELISTS
/* On some platforms, malloc() performance is bad enough that you can't just
OH, because SOME platforms have slow performance, it means even if you build protective technology into malloc() and free(), it will be ineffective. On ALL PLATFORMS, because that option is the default, and Ted's tests show you can't turn it off because they haven't tested without it in ages.
So then a bug shows up which leaks the content of memory mishandled by that layer. If the memoory had been properly returned via free, it would likely have been handed to munmap, and triggered a daemon crash instead of leaking your keys.
OpenSSL is not developed by a responsible team.
I have read the email again, but this only confirms the problem.
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. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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) 23:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
To all editors: Let the reader decide, given all the various ways of looking at things, don't try and decide what is true, we are not good at it. Please copy this comment to more general Wikipedia forum, I am not familiar with those aspects of the wiki community, but I believe this needs to be addressed.
Most recent example: editors insists on keeping false data in Space Warfare article solar panels efficiency claims. Space solar panels are 30% efficient, not 5-18%. Spectrolab makes and sells them, that's not a good enough reference? Somehow my doing some simple calculations comparing the needed size to the ISS solar panels is "bad" original work, but the rest of the entire section, which is un referenced, is not?
Wiki worked great when you let the user decide what were "reliable sources" now you have taken that choice away. You have taken the "wiki" out of Wikipedia, it's not the quick collaborative encyclopedia anymore, it some attempt to find the one and only "truth".
What is a "reliable source"? Not the one Wiki claims. Not peer reviewed.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-peer-review4.htm not good at finding errors
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/245503-The-Corruption-of-Science-How-Corporations-Like-Monsanto-Have-Hijacked-Higher-Education What's more, a broader look at all corporate agricultural research, $7.4 billion in 2006, dwarfs the mere $5.7 billion in all public funding of agricultural research spent the same year.
Peer reviewed does no mean correct. Most peer reviewed papers eventually turn out to be wrong, that's progress, . Go read a bunch of Nature papers from the 1940's: Mostly wrong ideas, bad methodology, bad conclusions.
Nature does a good job, and they are still wrong, that's science.
The misunderstanding of the significance of peer reviewed
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-peer-review4.htm
Unless it's one of a handful of top journals it really means almost nothing, yet it might be the next big thing.
Not that there aren't great papers and report of great experiments, it's just that the mere fact of being peer reviewed has nothing to do with that.
Science is about the experiments and theories and then the testing of the theories by replication by other scientists. The journals were just a way to publish
http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review_failure
Now with the internet, it's not really necessary
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0010.107?rgn=main;view=fulltext pro peer review but modified
You should not even allow references to for pay articles, it completely defeats the purpose. If a pay reference is used, it can only duplicate an unpaid ref, how will anyone afford to check all the paid refs? Just say need unpaid reference.
Is Government a "reliable Source"? Nope.
Example: The cost of electricity article you believe the DOE is a "reliable Source" You believe the government agencies repeatedly accused and found to be captive to the fossils and nuclear industry. I ask the editors: what cost of solar panels did the DOE sited numbers use? Search for it, and you will learn that the DOE doesn't take solar seriously, they hired a consulting firm to give them numbers without and backup data. solar panels on the world spot market on are 50-70 cents, but the DOE uses much higher numbers. They also assume a 15 year life for panels that last at least 40 years.
Do you believe the gov on everything else it says? In fact, is there any reason to believe the gov at all?
I know you want some sort of truth, that is believable, but there is no single immutable truth about much of anything.
Stop this editing out of everything that does not come from the gov or a peer reviewed source, that's not truth, it's not science, it is not encyclopedic. There are differences of opinion, and hidden agendas all over the place, you can't tell which ones are correct, you MUST leave it to the readers.
I want every crazy theory referenced in every article. We can put the "most popular" view first, but we need comprehensive articles, no one takes Wikipedia articles or ANY encyclopedia articles as "truth" anyway, they are not primary references. We used to do this. Let's do it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.79.104 ( talk) 07:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Seahorse. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I had to undo your edit in order to remove some nonsense that had been added earlier. Nothing personal. Roundtheworld ( talk) 08:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi I request you to add the following hyperlink{ http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Panchayudha_Stotram] as a source of with reference to Pancha Ayudham in the "Vishnu" page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirtuh ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear FenixFeather,
WP:MOS/Film states that we should descrivbe how the film performed in a retrospective, not a historical way. Therefore this: "During its nineteenth weekend of release, Frozen surpassed Toy Story 3 in the worldwide box office, becoming the highest-grossing animated film of all time." should simply be stated as "Frozen is the highest-grossing animated film worldwide". Furthermore, it is logical to compare Frozen with other Walt Disney Animation Studios films or other animated films in general, but comparing it to Disney and Pixar films is definitely WP:INDISCRIMINATE. WP:MOS/Film also states that editors should "Avoid indexical terminology such as "domestic" [...] and [...] "international"." Such terminology includes the word "foreign". We should be specific and state "the film's debut outside the US and Canada" or "outside North America".
Concerning the part stating that Frozen is a "Walt Disney Pictures release", just read these three Wikipedia articles: The Walt Disney Studios (division), Walt Disney Animation Studios, Walt Disney Pictures. The first clearly states in the infobox that Walt Disney Pictures and Walt Disney Animation Studios are separate divisions. The division of Disney that releases films is called Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures.
Furthermore, in my edit I updated the film's ranking in some categories and corrected a grammatical error "(five-day opening of $14.1 million)and Russia and the CIS", where the word "and" was not necessary (not to mention it was stuck onto the brackets). So I would like to ask kindly that the next time you disagree with part of my edit, please only change that specific part instead of the whole thing.
Thank you in advance. Spinc5 ( talk) 16:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Water fluoridation controversy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
We don't know exactly what his motive to drive so far to kill three white/non-jewish people is.
For all we know this could be motivated by his pagansim.
so it gets two words (that very light).
And the source is solid otherwise I wouldn't write this about a living person.
Check it out.
-- 107.199.68.228 ( talk) 05:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry getting tied, thought you should know everyone involved in the shootings religion seems to matter so that's what the categories are at the bottom. -- 107.199.68.228 ( talk) 05:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Italic text
Hi Fenix these days i am seeing lot of mischevious edits to Vishnu page. I requestank you to move the article to 'semi-protected'. so that it can be protected from mischevious vandalism.
Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirtuh ( talk • contribs) 14:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Unified Modeling Language. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi! You removed one of my links, about Riot. Can i please ask you some more info? I'm a noob in wikipedia, and every modify i make, some guy starting to undo it. and he didnțt let me any message. I have no idea how to get in touch with him. Can tou please help me? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwargolak ( talk • contribs) 21:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for responding man. the problem is i have no idea what to do. I modified 3-4 articles by adding one link to my blogs, which treated the subject. I mean in hannover page i write hannover blog and linked to my blog. the same with the mouse (linked to my post). but i see that man removed my modification on romanian page as well (im romanian and he's german), so whats his problem? can we talk via e-mail please? i have no idea here where to write person to person message. anyway my e-mail adress is vasile_francisc@yahoo.com
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwargolak ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
ah reply is on edit button. i had no idea. but i undertand whats wrong. but if i will make a new page for a smartphone company, i can put the links i want rigt? its my page, so i can do whatever i want (the links are related to the company). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwargolak ( talk • contribs) 23:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Circumcision. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is " Heartbleed". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 17:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Cyberbullying_over_article_about_Anita_Sarkeesian— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 23:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar | ||
For your quick and timely action to create a great graphic representation of the Heartbleed bug when it was needed most. Cheers, ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 06:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC) |
Hi there! The IP is nothing more than a troll. He's been blocked numerous times but uses proxies to jump IPs and avoid bans etc. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 23:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi FenixFeather, In [1], you have changed "Attackers in this way could receive sensitive data, compromising the confidentiality of the victim's communications with other parties." back to "Attackers in this way could receive sensitive data, compromising the security of the victim's communications.", justifying with ' "Other parties" is confusing and makes it seem like this has implications for security outside of the current communication.'. I haven't restored this change yet, but would you mind clarifying what you meant? How can "other parties" be confusing? This does have implications for security outside of the current communication, hence the gravity. -- Chealer ( talk) 20:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, You removed a request for reference on Heartbleed justifying "Holy shit, why do you have to edit war over ever single tiny thing? RTFM. It says clearly the the default clib malloc() (memory allocator) has protections against countermeasures. Please don't edit if you don't read the sources." Which sources are you referring to? By "clib", I assume you mean libc? -- Chealer ( talk) 21:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
But around that time OpenSSL adds a wrapper around malloc & free so that the library will cache memory on it's own, and not free it to the protective malloc.
You can find the comment in their sources ...
- ifndef OPENSSL_NO_BUF_FREELISTS
/* On some platforms, malloc() performance is bad enough that you can't just
OH, because SOME platforms have slow performance, it means even if you build protective technology into malloc() and free(), it will be ineffective. On ALL PLATFORMS, because that option is the default, and Ted's tests show you can't turn it off because they haven't tested without it in ages.
So then a bug shows up which leaks the content of memory mishandled by that layer. If the memoory had been properly returned via free, it would likely have been handed to munmap, and triggered a daemon crash instead of leaking your keys.
OpenSSL is not developed by a responsible team.
I have read the email again, but this only confirms the problem.
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. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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) 23:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)