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 get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
207		José Alfredo Jiménez (talk)	Add sources
121		Noah Beery (talk)	Add sources
87		Cooking show (talk)	Add sources
692		Paul Di'Anno (talk)	Add sources
473		Indiana Hoosiers football (talk)	Add sources
129		Dolls (1987 film) (talk)	Add sources
723		Douglas Fairbanks Jr. (talk)	Cleanup
121		Gale Garnett (talk)	Cleanup
119		John McMartin (talk)	Cleanup
15		Battalia à 10 (talk)	Expand
40		BoybandPH (talk)	Expand
120		Warren County, New Jersey (talk)	Expand
100		Our Gang personnel (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
65		Eric Frank Russell (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
8		Ralph Hancock (landscape gardener) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
21		Magdalena Medio Antioquia (talk)	Merge
15		Aqaba Railway Corporation (talk)	Merge
6		Holy Rosary Seminary (talk)	Merge
6		Pedro II of Brazil in the Paraguayan War (talk)	Wikify
2,013		Grand Slam (tennis) (talk)	Wikify
714		Tommy Tiernan (talk)	Wikify
2		Bruce C. Lubeck (talk)	Orphan
3,547		Killing of Lacey Fletcher (talk)	Orphan
2		Air Shares Elite (talk)	Orphan
7		Sunset Pass (1933 film) (talk)	Stub
3		The Man from Hell's Edges (talk)	Stub
5		Columbus (novel) (talk)	Stub
15		KOFI (talk)	Stub
3		Bardelys the Magnificent (novel) (talk)	Stub
5		Camille Lutz (talk)	Stub

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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr Joe, I read your remark why you are removing details for TRAVELAN from Travellers’ Diarrhea WP on basis this page should be non-promotional. I agree. However, I am at a loss to understand why you do not do the same for other products on the same page? For example, you have left the name of a product that shows only up to 43% efficacy against Traveller's diarrhea, yet you have removed details for TRAVELAN which shows up to 90.9% efficacy to prevent Traveller's Diarrhea. I trust this is just a simple oversight? 03:47, 15 August 2014 Cornelia Cefai

First of all, please sign your notes so I can know who I'm talking to. Regarding the cholera vaccine, I copy-edited that section this morning, as you may have noticed, and I will be fixing other problematic content in that article as time permits. (This isn't a full-time job for any of us, obviously.) Regarding Travelan, the claimed "90.9% efficacy" is hard to believe -- ETEC is responsible for only 20-75% of TD cases, depending on which study you believe. (Recent published research puts it in the 50-55% range -- that's another thing I'll fix when I can properly source it.) But even assuming 75% is the correct number -- and it almost certainly isn't that high -- Travelan would only work 75% of the time, even if it were 100% effective in preventing ETEC-caused TD, which of course it is not. Clearly, more efficacy studies (hopefully sponsored by someone other than its manufacturer) are needed. That said, I'm going to try it myself on an upcoming trip to Bhutan, if I can find a way to purchase a bottle. (So far it only seems to be available in Australia.) Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dr Joe, Apologies for not signing above, have rectified now. With regards to causative agents that can cause TD, the Center of Disease Control and prevention (CDC) note that infectious agents are the primary cause of TD with bacterial enteropathogens causing approximately 80% of TD cases and of these the most common causative agent isolated in countries surveyed is ETEC. ^{[1] [2]}

With regards to efficacy of TRAVELAN, one of the published randomized double blind placebo controlled trials found that TRAVELAN conferred efficacy up to 90.9% (p=0.0005) against infection with the major strain of ETEC that causes TD, namely strain H10407. ^[3] It is important to note that TRAVELANis a polyvalent product as it contains antibodies against this strain of ETEC plus another 13 strains of ETEC. This further enhances the potential efficacy against all ETEC strains that cause TD, plus offers cross reactivity to other bacterial strains that share antigens with ETEC.

In contrast, the oral Cholera vaccine conferred efficacy of only up to 43% against infection with ETEC. As a result this product is no longer recommended as a prophylaxis for TD in many countries and a recent Cochrane review concluded that there is currently insufficient evidence from RCTs to support the use of the oral cholera vaccine for protecting travellers against ETEC diarrhoea. ^[4]

With regards to purchasing, TRAVELAN can be purchased at pharmacies in Australia and in Canada, or on-line http://www.travelan.com.au/where.php I wish you all the best with your travels and trust you have a TD free trip. Cornelia Cefai

A careful re-reading of the clinical trial that you quote reveals that it involved artificial challenge with a homologous strain of ETEC under lab conditions; efficacy under actual travel conditions has not been demonstrated. I hope someone does that study, and if/when it is published, we will certainly add it to the article. Thanks for the cholera vaccine source -- I will add that info forthwith. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 06:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the 40 people who signed up this drive, 22 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2400 articles to 2199 articles in July. This is a new month-end record low for the backlog. Nice work, everyone! Blitz: The August blitz will run from August 24–30. The blitz will focus on articles from the GOCE's Requests page. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. The blitz will run from August 24–30. Sign up here! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for simplifying the text of D.B. Cooper. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't even fix the reference break that was created from the overhaul of the Ramirez article. I had to revert to a time before you changed it. Now, I know I've asked you for your excellent help on the article in the past, but this was a bit much! Why would you not bother to mention such a drastic rewrite of the article at least on the talk page before doing it? It's basically mowing over something I put a lot of work into. I wrote basically all of it, and there was zero there before. We both know that you would be highly irritated and insulted if someone did the same to your work. Was it really that bad? Poor quality? Can we please just work on adding more stuff with references to the article instead? That's really what the article needs. There's a lot about the massive trial, for instance, that needs to be added. Doc talk 06:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to upset you. In all fairness, it wasn't a "drastic rewrite" -- mostly just copyediting to take out bloat and redundancy and make it more readable. I *thought* I left the references alone, for the most part. Perhaps I did get a bit carried away. I'll try again, a little at a time, when I get another bit of free time (all too rare these days). Unfortunately I haven't had time to plow through the major references, so I can't address the trial as yet. All in good time. Again, my apologies, I was just trying to improve the article. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 12:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help on the article, believe me. I solicited it a year ago, and then asked for additional help recently. And I know It's not "my" article. I'm sorry I got short with you; but I was shocked to see so much material removed at once. I don't know how much is truly "bloat". Almost 2K removed in 1 edit. Ouch! I think some stuff didn't need to be trimmed nearly so much.

I first noticed the changes when looking at the Carns attack, where "When news of the attack broke, Romero told his parents about the strange man in the orange Toyota, and they immediately contacted the police and provided the partial license plate number" was replaced by "Romero's parents contacted police and reported the partial license plate number." This breaks up the flow of the description of events and omits details in a way that I can't see as an improvement. Also the fact that Carns was awakened by Ramirez before he was shot, when others were shot dead in their sleep, was not in need of omitting. I was also concerned about the reference break (#79), which was not fixed when I added back the reference to Carlo p.145 concerning the fact that the victim untied her own son and sent him for help.[1] Doc talk 06:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the fact that a victim sent her son for help is particularly relevant, but if you do I have no objection to leaving it in. I'll be more careful this time. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 12:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

Not sure how to edit Wikipedia, but John List also had adopted his first wife's child, Brenda, born 2-7-42. So he actually had 4 children, not 3.

Respectfully, Nancy Dawkins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.161 (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, I hadn't seen that before. Obviously she had left the household by the time the murders took place. Do you know what happened to her? Do you know of any references that I can use? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors October 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights: Results of the August Blitz and September Drive A few changes around the Guild's pages Sign up for the October Blitz Review the Coordinators election results – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted my edit regarding DeLillo - I can agree that perhaps it was "irrelevant" in a section about actual (as opposed to fictional) artifacts, but it did seem the best place to note something which I do not think can be rightly called trivial. It seemed bizarre to mention that the whereabouts of the ball were unknown without also parenthetically mentioning that this fact is central to one of the canonical works of late 20th century fiction (just as it would be bizarre for the article on the shipwreck of the Essex not to mention Moby Dick, as it dutifully does in the introduction). Thoughts? I don't like those "in popular culture" sections, typically... Tothebarricades (talk) 04:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I don't like "popular culture" sections either, mostly because they nearly always degenerate into lists of unsourced trivia. But there is no "popular culture" section in the article in question -- only an "artifacts" section, which deals with the whereabouts of the bat, ball, uniform, etc. So I'm afraid that a mention of the "elusive ball" in Underworld does not meet notability or relevancy standards for that section. (I also don't think that the relationship of the White Whale to the Essex shipwreck compares in any realistic way to the notability of the lost ball in the plot of Underworld, which is mostly about the protagonist's life and relationships, and only peripherally about the ball, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the other historic events mentioned.) You could, I suppose, create a new "popular culture" section for the article and list that anecdote within it, as long as you source the book, with appropriate page numbers. While I would have no objection to that, I fear that some of the more "orthodox" baseball editors -- the ones who abhor "popular culture" trivia more than I -- would take it down anyway. But give it a go, if you feel strongly about it, and we'll go through the WP:BRD exercise. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ed Sullivan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Comedy Channel. 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) 10:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Er, just curious. Not that it's a big thing or that I rv your edit to the Bogart page, but how can there still be a dispute about his date/year of birth, given the following:

"... although no birth certificate has ever been found, an announcement of his birth appeared in the Ontario County Times (January 10, 1900 issue), declaring "Born: at New York, Dec. 25, 1899, to Dr. and Mrs. Belmont DeForest Bogart, a son", which supports the December 1899 date, as does the 1900 census.{{#tag:ref|The 1900 census for the household of Belmont Bogart lists his son Humphrey as having a birth date in December 1899. There are also three different censuses attesting to his birth date in December 1899. [[Lauren Bacall]], Bogart's widow, always maintained that December 25 was his true birth date."<ref>[http://bogart-tribute.net/legends.shtml "Bogart: Urban Legends"]. bogart-tribute.net; retrieved January 25, 2011.</ref>|group=N}}<ref>New York City birth index records show a Bogart DeForest born on December 25, 1899, certificate number 330.</ref>

Yours, Quis separabit? 14:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that edit was 3 weeks ago -- I'd forgotten about it. Upon further review, you point is well taken -- it shouldn't be controversial any longer, although the fact remains that numerous sources still list his birthdate as January 23. Frankly, the entire paragraph is poorly written and inadequately sourced; I will rewrite it when I get a few minutes, probably later today, and I'll be sure to emphasize that the controversy is (or should be) past-tense. Thanks for your note. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I let myself get sucked in to such minutia? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happens to the best of us! :-) Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo. Was amused by your posting on User talk:JamesBWatson so I decided to make a template, User:Mrjulesd/templates/silly. I may well use it on April 1st. --Mrjulesd (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I nicked it from a fellow tag hater. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you have reverted my edit on Arthur Gary Bishop? This is the diff. Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental, my apologies, I have unreverted. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 07:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Please stop changing Milton Berle's name to Mendel. I worked closely with Milton for nine years, and I have seen his birth certificate, clearly naming his birth name as Milton Berlinger.

First of all, please sign your notes. Second, "I have seen his birth certificate" does not constitute citing a reliable source. You may well be right -- and all the cited sources wrong -- that Berle's birth name was Milton; but until you cite a reliable source to that effect, it's not going in the article. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is YOUR source for Mendel? The truth is, there is NO source. Milton Berle's birth certificate is a document that is available to the public, just contact the State of New York and get yourself a copy.

A few examples of the many sources for Mendel Berlinger are here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. You haven't cited a single source to support your claim. It's not my job to "contact the State of New York", it is YOUR job to supply proof, since you're the one making the change to the article. And now you're edit warring, which can get you blocked from editing entirely. Please supply a source for your edit on the article's talk page before making any further changes to the article. And once again, please sign your notes! DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet??? Surely you jest!

Not at all -- you've done it before, and nobody else is questioning Berle's birth name; it must be you. You haven't made any attempt to counter my points. And once again, you didn't sign your note. Are you that thick? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Candidate nominations for Guild coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015, are currently underway. The nomination period will close at 23:59 on December 15 (UTC), after which voting will commence until 23:59 on December 31, 2014. Self-nominations are welcomed. Please consider getting involved; it's your Guild and it won't coordinate itself, so if you'd like to help coordinate Guild activities we'd love to hear from you. Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2014 Newsletter Drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in November's Backlog Elimination Drive. Of the 43 people who signed up for this drive, 26 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: The November Drive removed 26 requests from the Requests page and 509 articles from the {{copy edit}} backlog. We copy edited 83 articles tagged in the target months; July, August, and September 2013. Together with tag removals from articles unsuitable for copy editing, we eliminated July 2013 from the backlog and reduced August and September's tags to 61 and 70 respectively. As of 01:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC), the backlog stood at 1,974 articles, dipping below 2,000 for the first time in the Guild's history (see graph at right). Well done everyone! Blitz: The December Blitz will run from December 14–20 and will focus on articles related to Religion, in recognition of this month's religious holidays in much of the English-speaking world. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. Sign up here! Election time again: The election of coordinators to serve from 1 January to 30 June 2015 is now underway. Candidates can nominate themselves or others from December 01, 00:01 (UTC), until December 15, 23:59. The voting period will run from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. You can read about coordinators' duties here. Please consider getting involved and remember to cast you vote—it's your Guild and it doesn't organize itself! Thank you all once again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve anything without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the reason for your revert, now I don´t wonder, the signs on your personal page definitely show that you are a follower of crom. Lolz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.78.132.236 (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you are talking about. I reverted your edit because you gave no explanation or source for it. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors Late December 2014 Newsletter Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the December Blitz. Of the 14 editors who signed up for the blitz, 11 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. January drive: The January backlog-reduction drive is just around the corner; sign up here! Election time again: The election of coordinators to serve from January 1 to June 30, 2015 is now underway. The voting period runs from December 16, 00:01 (UTC), until December 31, 23:59. Please cast your vote—it's your Guild, and it doesn't run itself! Happy holidays from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the incident regarding the Itamar attack. It was a heinous terrorist attack. Three children were murdered while they were sleeping in their beds. Please change the it back from killed to murdered. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasan shemiyo (talk • contribs) 21:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree, but why are you contacting me? I have never edited that article, nor anything relating to it, nor do I see any recent edits in it involving a change from "murdered" to "killed" or vice versa. Please make your case on the talk page of that article, or any related article that contains terminology about the case to which you object. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (see below) so that the editor you are contacting will know who he or she is talking to. Thanks, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I thought you were editing it. Hasan shemiyo (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Hasan[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors 2014 Annual Report Our 2014 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Review the election results; Membership news; Changes around the Guild's pages; Plans for 2015. – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Blocking (stage)#Stage directions for the description of "stage left" and "stage right". The image in that section shows stage directions from the audience's perspective. The host's podium on the 1980s version of The Joker's Wild is located stage left. AldezD (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the difference between "stage right" and "audience right". For the show in question my recollection is the opposite of yours, but it's not a huge point and I'll take your word for it. What "image" are you referring to? There is no photo of the Joker set (or any other) in the Cullen article. Do we have sourcing for any of this? At present, that entire paragraph is unsourced; absent citations, some fastidious user is liable to take it down, or at least tag it as such. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image I am referring to is the image in the Blocking (stage)#Stage directions section. It labels stage & audience left/right. To avoid violating WP:YOUTUBE and posting a link here, you can search for a video of the show from the 1980s period with Bill Cullen hosting and see that he enters from stage left, where the podium is located.

In the grand scheme of things, this is WP:TRIVIA and within the article goes into a much greater detail than necessary.

Thanks again for your help :) AldezD (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You reverted what I wrote on the Benders because you said it didn't have anything to do with the Benders. I believe it did since it proved that the people that are referred to by a lot of newspaper sources (and books that refer to it) as the Benders were not the Benders. Should I have put it on a separate page? Thank you! Jiggilypuffs (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggilypuffs (talk • contribs) 02:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was clearly in good faith, and I labeled it as such. The problem is that you synthesized facts from a collection of published material, and drew a conclusion about those facts that is not clearly stated by any of the published sources themselves. This is known in WP parlance as original research, and it is not permitted. You would need to find a published reliable source that draws that same conclusion -- that the contemporary newspapers were incorrect about Almira Hill and John Flickinger -- before you could add it to the article. I know it is frustrating, and it's very tempting to draw your own conclusions when the evidence is laid out right in front of you; but "no original research" is one of WP's fundamental rules, and must be adhered to.

If you can't locate a published source that draws that conclusion, your other alternative would be to simply state the facts (and cite the sources) without drawing any conclusions -- leaving readers to draw whatever conclusions they wish. If you choose that option, I would suggest that you incorporate the material directly into the existing paragraph, or make a separate paragraph for it, but not a separate section. You just have to be careful not to bury the reader in minutiae. I would be happy to help with that, if you wish. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for politely taking the time to answer me. I had no idea that original research wasn't allowed (or that pointing out that they got married after the murders happened counted as original research, but I do see your/wikipedia's point). I would love help putting it in the paragraph. I think it's important for Almira Hill and John Flickinger to not go down in history as the Bender mass murderers just because an early 1900's newspaper said so without checking the primary sources of marriage and death records. Jiggilypuffs (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. Give it a shot, at your convenience, and I'll copyedit as necessary. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The district attorney in Bremen NEVER ruled his death as suicide as it's stated on the autopsy report. The rumor was fueled by exwife and exagent. You should know what you're talking before posting something you have no idea about.

First of all, please sign your notes on talk pages. No established editor will take snide anonymous comments seriously. Now, to your point: We use published sources here at WP because they fact-check their stories, and generally don't rely on rumor and innuendo. The published sources cited in the Barton article state that the Bremen DA ruled his death a suicide. If you have a reliable published source that says something different, feel free to call our attention to it. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I added some content related to the cannon shot that struck the Delhi's Iron Pillar in history. It has been deleted from your username it says. I took the content from a journal which already had some citations. I used those citations for my added information. So could you explain what is the reason behind deleting that information?

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marathas iitgn (talk • contribs) 13:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it at some length on the talk page of that article. There are copyright issues here. If you want to re-add the content in your own words, with proper sourcing, feel free. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not able to figure out which reference i am missing out. I read the information about the cannon ball from a journal. So I mentioned the name of the general in the references along with a link to it. Also, the journal itself had some references mentioned on the text which I used. Hence, I mentioned those references also to be on the safer side. Could you please help me out on what I am missing. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marathas iitgn (talk • contribs) 19:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to put it right. As I explained on the article talk page, I removed your content because it was plagiarized virtually verbatim -- grammatical errors and all -- from this primary source. The sources copied from that article are mostly personal communications, which do not qualify as WP:RS. Meanwhile, please do not revert again; edit warring will get you blocked if an admin notices that you have reverted repeatedly. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I have rewritten the section to avoid copyright issues, with additional sources. If you have any objections or suggestions, please let me know. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Blocki was a pioneer American perfumer that honored Polish and Prussian historic figures and artists with his fragrances. The Blocki family was part of the Szlatchta noble class. John Blocki emigrated to the US in 1850 with his family as they fled the revolutions. Bouquet Kosciuszko is a notable tribute since more perfumes are named after French or English historic figures. It is a fitting cultural tribute as are the other arts referenced like opera, novels and poems. Fika6035 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Fika6035[reply]

@Fika6035: Fair enough, and that information is appropriate for the John Blocki article; but unfortunately, it falls into the "who cares" category of notability on the Kosciuszko page. I simply can't agree that a long-defunct perfume brand is in any way comparable to the bridges, parks, national memorials, museums, stamps, literary and musical works, etc., etc. that bear his name. If you disagree, I would strongly suggest that you make your case on the Kosciuszko talk page before attempting to add it again; because as I'm sure you noticed, I was not the only one who reverted it -- and unless you can gain a consensus for it on the talk page, I'm pretty sure that it will continue to be reverted. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, it might be best to start a discussion on the article talk page before accusations of edit-warring start getting thrown about. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Shevat 5775 03:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Flinders Petrie: The burden of evidence lies with the editor(s) making the change. They cannot remove sourced material and then ask me to justify putting it back; it's their job to justify removing it. So I'll await their argument for removing it, and then respond. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I might give my two p on it later. I was just trying to avoid having things get unfriendly. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 29 Shevat 5775 05:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please format refs similar to those is the rest of the article. WP:MEDRS explains how
• We typically do not use patient but use person instead per WP:MEDMOS

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Understood. Thanks. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... why would a serial sockmaster who has created no less than 100 different accounts be especially passionate about one particular account? Why would they expend any energy defending one when all the have to do is make another? I'm really confused by that. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rationalobserver: I suppose only a serial sockmaster could answer that. Again, I can't presume to speak for Dennis, but I think what he was getting at was, if the suspicions are groundless, SPI or Arb will surely determine that -- so why not sit back, wait for vindication, and accept the apologies? Believe me, I understand the frustration of being falsely accused -- I've been there -- but human nature being what it is, the more one protests, the more others suspect that there might be something there. If there is nothing there, the vultures will be eating crow soon enough. Patience. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 01:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'll take tomorrow off to cool down. Thanks for the advice. Rationalobserver (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to start an edit war, but I never used the Talk page before and did not know how to respond to your reverting my addition to a page, since it has not happened to me in a long time. I just thought my addition to the John List page added good information, since it was an extremely thorough episode, complete with a very lengthy and chilling interview with List. As you stated, the episode may be mentioned in the External Links, but I just don't believe it is that visible there. I rarely look at the external links and instead focus on the body of the article itself. I suppose that my main question/concern is why should we not allow for a more complete discussion of topics within the actual body of their articles, especially when someone is good enough to add the information, and as is the case here, the information is easily verifiable? I am a media professor at a state university and I am always interested in adding information about media presentations to various articles, usually old-time radio programs. I have not had a media addition of mine reverted or edited in many years, thus I was a bit surprised by it. However, if you believe it is not important enough to include in the body of the article, I concede. Felixthecat70 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Felixthecat70: The reason that I suggested you make your case on the talk page is that I truly don't know what the right answer is here. We continually see reminders that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, and a simple reference in the external links section would seem to be sufficient for a straightforward documentary about List. Since you feel otherwise, I thought it fair to initiate a discussion and solicit the opinions of other interested editors. I'll start a thread over there now, summarizing what we've both said here; feel free to add to it. We can go with whatever consensus develops. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 05:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorJoeE: Thanks very much for your consideration and extra effort in this case. It is greatly appreciated. Felixthecat70 (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoctorJoeE, I took a peek at the Dermatology task force and came across your name. I'm currently seeking out someone from the Dermatology task force or Wikiproject Medicine to act as an additional reviewer for the acne vulgaris article. Any chance that you're interested in doing that or know someone active on the task force who would be? Any help would be appreciated! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerDurden8823: Sure, be happy to. Anything in particular, or just general overview? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DoctorJoeE! Regarding what is needed for the review, here is what Bluerasberry said: "By Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#The_six_good_article_criteria, I confirmed points 3 entirely and 4 in the parts we discussed. Someone else needs to sign off on the other parts, including "well written", "verifiable", "neutral" (for what I did not cover), "stable", and "illustrated"." So, a general overview would be fine or the scope of your review can be a bit narrower than that and complement Bluerasberry's. If anything does need fixing on the article, I only ask that you tell me and I'll promptly make them (rather than go through the process of failing it and starting all over again). Thanks again for the help! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what you've listed in User:DoctorJoeE#Observations, and I wanted to invite you to keep Wikipedia:Irregular verbs on Wikipedia on your watchlist, and in your mind in case you can help expand it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Duly watchlisted; will help with expansion as inspiration strikes! DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 01:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hello DoctorJoeE... Blue Rasberry has passed the GA review article for Dyslexia, however it needs another individual to look at it and then close, I saw your help on Acne Vulgaris and decided you could help, should there be any additional information needed, references or images I would not hesitate to add them at your request, I thank you for your time, please contact me with any questions, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa: I will do my best to get this done by the end of the weekend. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much Doctor JoeE, again should you have any questions do not hesitate to ask, thank you again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, some problems have come up in regard to the article, apparently it will have to be put on hold,,, again Doctor JoeE I apologize, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa: So I see. Not a problem, let me know when you need me. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 01:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorJoeE try now, I think its ready,(whether it passes or fails) thank you, for your generous time and patience in this matter--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorJoeE whenever your ready--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm have some pressing real-world work to complete first, so give me a couple of days. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorJoeE if your not available, just let me know, I can try to find someone, but first I would prefer to get your OK--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get it done today. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorJoeE there have been no more comments/objections from other reveiwers, I think you can close...thank you very much,God bless you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW the Legobot hasn't placed the GA icon on the front of the article?)

DoctorJoeE...thank you for your GA review--

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa: Yes, GA icon placement is supposed to be automatic. Perhaps it takes awhile. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks again, your awesome--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were the 454th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, thank you once again. Your uplifting messages are a breath of fresh air. You are yourself one of Wikipedia's precious jewels! DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 11:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fresh air for me, an editor restricted because of alleged battles (but no precise transgressions provided) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous, isn't it? I've said repeatedly that if the political factions of this community were to devote more of their considerable energies to creating encyclopedia content -- which I (perhaps naively) thought was the reason for its existence -- we would all be much happier, and the world would have a much better encyclopedia. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I (75.44.39.2) didn't re-write the section to which you've paid attention, is that I encounter far too many errors in Wikipedia articles on a regular basis. It can be as common as EVERY article I go to on a daily basis. Errors of syntax, punctuation, citation, paragraph structure, etc, etc, etc are so common, that If I edited every error I found, I wouldn't have time tor much else. Not to mention that simply editing (or adding to) an article involves so many burdensome formatting rules that I've found difficult to understand, that I just do what I can. And that includes edits like the one I made.

@75.44.39.2: We all have a finite amount of editing time. I would merely point out that in the time it took you to add a wisecrack calling attention to one minor error -- and forcing a time-wasting revert by another editor -- you could have simply fixed it. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you commented on the recent FDR infobox linking, there is a broader based RfC going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC concerning the infobox linking of all political offices. Please comment if it is of interest to you. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your patience with fools and knowledgeable rebuttal of idiocies. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this violates multiple policies and is grandstanding. We really do not need to immortalise it. Guy (Help!) 23:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Well, I've seen far worse -- and I reverted it because erasing non-trolling posts with responses is frowned upon. But on further review, it pretty much is trolling, isn't it? So if no one else objects, I'm okay with it. I'm also working on an FAQ for that talk page, to which we can refer the inevitable future trolls. Cheers, DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 02:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that it makes a specific allegation of malfeasance against a single, named commercial entity. You and I both know the "Pharma Shill Gambit" equally well, I'm sure, but this names GSK specifically. Guy (Help!) 07:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Quite right, although that particular accusation is just silly, as I mentioned in my response on the page, since GSK doesn't make any of the vaccines in question. An even better reason, from a WP perspective, is the whole poisoning the well issue, which WP considers a serious AGF violation. BTW, where do I sign up to become a pharma shill? How do I get a piece of that action? Why should I waste my time seeing patients, publishing papers, writing grants, editing WP for free -- when I could be making big bucks ruthlessly mocking alternative treatment theories full time? That recruiter never calls. Bugger. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I find out I will let you know. I keep meaning to ask David Gorski, he must surely know. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: David is one of the good guys. You need thick skin to do what he does. Better he than me. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2015 News May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, and we got within 50 articles of our all-time low in the backlog. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Coordinator elections: Nominations are open through June 15 for GOCE coordinators, with voting from June 16–30. Self-nominations are welcome and encouraged. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Williams is mentioned immediately above as one of the murders allegedly committed by Edwards.

I did move the text to the Wayne Williams article, and perhaps there was too much detail, but I think some notice that there has been activity in the cases listed above is reasonable.JusticeAdvocate1 (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JusticeAdvocate1: You cannot combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. This is WP:SYNTHESIS, a subset of WP:OR. Edwards is not mentioned in the sources you cited. That material is fine for the articles (if any) of the respective suspects, but not for Edwards' article unless Edwards is mentioned in the source material. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see your point. It wasn't intended to reach or imply a conclusion, just to be a list of developments in the cases cited immediately above in the article. Obviously such developments subsequent to the publication of the book are not noted in the book, or together in any secondary source that I know of. Would it be ok to include mention of developments at the point where the case is mentioned? e.g. "the May 1, 2001 killing of Chandra Levy, for which a retrial was ordered in June 2015", with an extra reference to support the note?JusticeAdvocate1 (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JusticeAdvocate1: As long as the reference specifies how that development is relevant to Edwards, sure. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been reading WP:Synthesis. I don't see the problem as it's only stating easily a relevant easily verified fact (that a retrial was ordered in June 2015). It's not drawing an inference, there is no opinion involved, there is nothing "original". Still, I can see the disadvantage of having redundant information. Perhaps it is best noted only in the other article as you originally suggested.JusticeAdvocate1 (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JusticeAdvocate1: Agree. The problem is in linking the retrial to Edwards when the cited source doesn't make that connection. We're not allowed to make that connection on our own. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DoctorJoeE. Your account has been granted the "rollbacker" and "reviewer" user rights. These user rights allow you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes and quickly revert the edits of other users.

Rollback user right

Please keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin).

Pending changes reviewer user right

The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection enabled is located at Special:StablePages. You may find the following pages useful to review:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes.
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of reviewer or rollback. If you no longer want either of these user rights, contact me and I'll remove it, alternatively you can leave a request on the administrators' noticeboard. Happy editing! 19:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 — Berean Hunter (talk)

Is "he was married to 3 Hispanic women" seriously your argument for him not being a racist? You DO know that Hispanics are part of the Europeoid race, don't you? Aparently you don't. Damn racist! Your beloved John Wayne talked about white supremacy and not giving power to blacks more than anyone else even back then. Unsquint your eyes and read, it's right there in the book! Le Grand Bleu (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Grand Bleu: at WP we are not permitted to draw conclusions about article subjects (see WP:OR and WP:NPOV), nor make assumptions about other editors, such as your assumption that I'm a fan of John Wayne (see WP:AGF). For the record, I find his political and social statements just as offensive as you do; but on WP, our opinions don't matter -- only sources matter. You can't label him a "known racist" unless he is specifically described that way in a reliable source, no matter how obvious that conclusion may seem to you. There are plenty of forums, blogs, and other venues where you can chastise him all you want -- but on this site, we are obligated to follow WP's neutrality guidelines. If you can find a reliable source that uses the words "known racist", feel free to add it back; otherwise it will keep getting reverted, by me or someone else. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
26		The Pleasure of Finding Things Out (talk)	Add sources
1,363		Henry Lee Lucas (talk)	Add sources
3,551		Black Dahlia (talk)	Add sources
17		The Search for Roots (talk)	Add sources
1,231		Ottis Toole (talk)	Add sources
38		Rant in E-Minor (talk)	Add sources
32		Obstructing government administration (talk)	Cleanup
29		Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (talk)	Cleanup
12		Catherine Telegdi (talk)	Cleanup
15,448		Gmail (talk)	Expand
422		The Poughkeepsie Tapes (talk)	Expand
1,324		Hispanic and Latino Americans (talk)	Expand
17		Melrose Hill, Los Angeles (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
770		Epic film (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
48		Nichols Canyon, Los Angeles (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
128		Possession of stolen goods (talk)	Merge
746		Stolen Generations (talk)	Merge
727		Didi Chuxing (talk)	Merge
138		Elizabeth Báthory in popular culture (talk)	Wikify
23		Richard Hurst (talk)	Wikify
299		Orville Redenbacher (talk)	Wikify
14		Motovario (talk)	Orphan
8		Shmuel Gogol (talk)	Orphan
43		Adolph Botnick (talk)	Orphan
18		Pan Am Flight 281 (talk)	Stub
12		Perfectly Reasonable Deviations from the Beaten Track (talk)	Stub
52		Kidnapping of Jessica Ridgeway (talk)	Stub
40		U.S. Robots and Mechanical Men (talk)	Stub
11		Sean Osborn (talk)	Stub
27		Bethe–Feynman formula (talk)	Stub

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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]