User talk:PAVA11/Archive 5

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

right

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}}, due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Ruby2010}}, whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Jivesh boodhun}}, who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|12george1}} was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|12george1}} was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Sp33dyphil}} was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Sp33dyphil}} is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Speciate}} was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
• {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Jivesh boodhun}} was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been spending a lot of time lately creating and modifying templates for critically acclaimed episode articles. You have already created "And in the End...". It has come to my attention that one of the most critically acclaimed episodes in television history is the ER episode entitled "Love's Labor Lost (ER) that needs to be created. It appears on {{tl|WritersGuildofAmericaEpisodicComedyScreenplay 1995–2009}}, {{tl|EmmyAward ComedyDirector 1976–2000}} and {{tl|EmmyAward ComedyWriting 1976–2000}}. You may also note several other critically acclaimed ER episodes at Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Directing for a Drama Series, Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series, Writers Guild of America Award for Best Screenplay – Episodic Drama and Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directing – Drama Series that were either nominees or winners. You may want to consider creating some of those as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

right

Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}}, again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Tigerboy1966}}, thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Ruby2010}}, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}}, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Miyagawa}} and {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Casliber}}. February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Ruby2010}}. At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

right

We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}}, of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}}, thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Casliber}}, who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Matthewedwards}}, whose impressive :File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|12george1}}, who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Miyagawa}} show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}} remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Casliber}} was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Muboshgu}} coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: :File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Matthewedwards}} and {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grandiose}}, the latter of whom has also gone on to score with :File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Ealdgyth}} earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Dana boomer}} earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Stone}} to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Jarry1250}} managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "[http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/04/30/improving-wikipedia-with-friendly-competition/ Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition]", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Jarry1250}} and {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Stone}}, for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, :File:Chuck mangione character.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

right

We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}}, whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}}, is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Miyagawa}} leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Casliber}}, our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Muboshgu}}, claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

right

Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Igordebraga}}, who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}}, whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}} came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Muboshgu}}, with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

right

We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}} as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}} in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Muboshgu}} in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Ruby2010}} follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

right

The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}} once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
2. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Miyagawa}} led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
3. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Ruby2010}} was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
4. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Casliber}} finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
5. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}} came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
6. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Muboshgu}} was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
7. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Dana boomer}} was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
8. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Sasata}} is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|GreatOrangePumpkin}}, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Ealdgyth}}, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Calvin999}}, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Piotrus}}, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Toa Nidhiki05}}, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|12george1}}, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|The Bushranger}} and {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|1111tomica}}. We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

right

We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}} currently leads, followed by {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Sasata}}, {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}} and {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Casliber}}. However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

right

The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}}, our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: {{ul|Dreamafter}} (2007), {{ul|jj137}} (2008), {{ul|Durova}} (2009), {{ul|Sturmvogel 66}} (2010) and {{ul|Hurricanehink}} (2011). Our final standings were as follows:

1. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}}
2. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Sasata}}
3. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}}
4. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Casliber}}
5. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Muboshgu}}
6. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Miyagawa}}
7. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Ruby2010}}
8. {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Dana boomer}}

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

• The featured article award goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}}, for four featured articles in the final round.
• The good article award also goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}}, for 19 good articles in the second round.
• The list award goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Muboshgu}}, for three featured lists in the final round.
• The topic award goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grapple X}}, for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
• The did you know award goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}}, for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
• The news award goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|ThaddeusB}}, for 10 in the news items in round 3.
• The picture award goes to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grandiose}}, for two featured pictures in round 2.
• The reviewer award goes to both {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Ruby2010}} (14 reviews in round 1) and {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Grandiose}} (14 reviews in round 3).
• Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to {{Wikipedia:WikiCup/Participant3|Cwmhiraeth}}.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your edit on the above. Unfortunately I have had to revert as the list is not intended to be an exhaustive one and maybe more useful in a list article should one be created in the future. A hidden comment was given asking for no bit-part actors to be added for that reason alone. If you disagree please take to the Skyfall talk page before resubmission. Hope that's OK. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

:Have the decency to acknowledge me rather than simply revert on Skyfall. I specifically asked for you to make representations on the talk page rather than re-add. It has now been reverted back to my version. Please do not add this again until it has been discussed on the talk page, as your approach last time was not very civil. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

::One revert is hardly problematic. What's more telling is your tone here. Grsz 11 15:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

:::I just don't like being ignored. I came here to soften the blow that being reverted has by offering an explanation as to why I did so. You, ignore me here and ignore my rational and go ahead and revert anyway. Maybe you should think of your role in WP:BRD as adopting this method could have diverted all of this negative atmosphere. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I deleted this article for you as it did qualify as a U1. I didn't see any significant work by others and I see no evidence that you want it deleted in bad faith. But can I just ask, why?--v/r - TP

:Hehe, I knew there was something fishy. I've fixed it all.--v/r - TP 20:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!