I am sending you a round of applause which you so richly deserve for all your efforts on Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation. I will never forget your great kindness and your tremendous skill. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dearheart, if you feel it is time, would you do the honors and close out the review? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Than you for the high commendation! This is actually my first article review, and I really enjoyed it. I'd be happy to review more of your work in the feature as you were awesome to work with. I have a couple other things on my docket that are perhaps less in your wheelhouse. Do you by chance know any dutch speakers who would want to review Hugo Krabbe? Czarking0 (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Greenman were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pinnacol Assurance Fund and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czarking0. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Pinnacol Assurance Fund".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Czarking0, thank you so much for your GA review on the VanossGaming biography, I agreed with all your comments. I've made a load of changes and I've done my best to address your comments, I've made notes as to how I addressed each one on the talk page. I was wondering if I should renominate the article for GA status, that way we could have another go together at perfecting the biography? Also I was reading your talk page about your degree, I'm currently doing a BSc in math and physics, it is certainly loads of fun ahah. Thanks again for the article review, looking forward to your next suggestion :) Idiosincrático (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the article for GA again, would appreciate your review. :) Idiosincrático (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Idiosincrático I have been busy with work. Thanks for your contribution in editting the article. Good luck with your studies. I will relook at the GA when I have some time Czarking0 (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		Thank you for participating in the March 2024 backlog drive. Your contribution (3 points total) helped reduce the backlog by more than 250 articles! Here's a token of our appreciation. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Clearview AI you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Clearview AI for comments about the article, and Talk:Clearview AI/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Congratulations! You did a great job. I liked the discussion about confidence intervals and accuracy. Y'all made a good compromise about how to convey that. Also, I missed the part about NIST (or maybe I glossed over it, I don't recall since it was back in September 2023). I made some edits tonight, nothing major. They were mostly things that Mike had mentioned. I did leave a comment in a transcluded place that I want to bring to your attention. Please see here. My comments are at the very end of that section. You and Mike don't need to reply unless you want to.--FeralOink (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk for comments about the article, and Talk:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk/GA3 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
2,124		First French Empire (talk)	Add sources
423		Rite Aid (talk)	Add sources
27		Educate Girls (talk)	Add sources
2,966		Green Party of the United States (talk)	Add sources
434		Economy of Qatar (talk)	Add sources
850		Chittagong Hill Tracts (talk)	Add sources
262		Global energy crisis (2021–2023) (talk)	Cleanup
61		History of Nagorno-Karabakh (talk)	Cleanup
7		5th National Congress of the Kuomintang (talk)	Cleanup
120		Petroleum industry in Iran (talk)	Expand
39		Energy policy of Russia (talk)	Expand
6		Regional effects of the 2021–2022 global energy crisis (talk)	Expand
75		Reformism (historical) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
35		Scraper site (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
79		Iskra Lawrence (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
178		China Petrochemical Corporation (talk)	Merge
398		Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island (talk)	Merge
71		Intersex and LGBT (talk)	Merge
72		Sibur (talk)	Wikify
238		Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis (2021–present) (talk)	Wikify
145		History of serfdom (talk)	Wikify
2		National Satellite Test Facility (talk)	Orphan
15		SPARK Schools (talk)	Orphan
3		Vivian Rosenthal (talk)	Orphan
4		Beseda (talk)	Stub
12		Jordan Petroleum Refinery Company (talk)	Stub
18		Kakenya Ntaiya (talk)	Stub
4		Hasan Khan Shahseven (talk)	Stub
109		Cepsa (talk)	Stub
13		CGCOC Group (talk)	Stub

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.

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For all of your hard work on Fukushima nuclear accident. I gave you A LOT of feedback and I worried it might have been too much but you handled it fantastically. Great work on that article, I couldn't imagine working on such an important and lengthy topic. I hope you consider nominating it for DYK. Keep up the great work! IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have given it a DYK nomination at your suggestion. Also open to other ideas/hooks on what should be included Czarking0 (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Fukushima nuclear accident you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident for comments about the article, and Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of IntentionallyDense -- IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zemstvo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Zemstvo you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Zemstvo for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fukushima nuclear accident, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an official investigation found the Fukushima nuclear accident was foreseeable and preventable? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fukushima nuclear accident. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fukushima nuclear accident), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czarking0. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Zemstvo at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Dhtwiki (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This haunts me at night and so I would like to apologize. For your nomination of Fukushima nuclear accident I made you change the citations to have a consistent format. I misinterpreted the GA criteria and have now learnt that this is not a part of the criteria. I'm sorry I made you do all of that as I would assume it was not very fun. This randomly pops in my mind every once and awhile and I hope it did not cause too much of a hassle for you at the time. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no worries! It was definitely not fun, but it made the article better regardless of the GAC. Plus that is my favorite article I have worked on. Also, I see your edits around WP and think highly of you! Czarking0 (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I can finally sleep at night knowing I didn't completely ruin your experience with that article. That also happens to be my favourite review I've ever done. Thank you for your kind words. I often see your username pop up and think of all the hardwork you put into that article as it was amazing. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		Your noteworthy contribution (3 points total) helped reduce the backlog by 185 articles! Here's a token of our appreciation. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 04:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mandy Gunasekara and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Czarking0! I was looking at your reversion of one of the edits I made to the page, which mentioned discussing it further - just wanted to come by and say thank you for explaining. The only reason I had removed that sentence and corresponding citation was because the valuation was speculative, and my initial assessment was it may not be relevant, as it could be a wildly inaccurate (or outdated) number, even if the POV was notable.

Not disagreeing with your reversion, just wanted to leave a note with my thoughts. Thank you again for explaining your reversion, so I can make sure I avoid the mistake in the future! Saintpats (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Proposed Deletion process is only for non- controversial subjects. The subject is by definition controversial, as she is one of the leading scholars on Fascism today. Take it to WP:AfD if you feel you must. Bearian (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've always read "uncontroversial" in that paragraph to mean the deletion is uncontroversial not the subject. Regardless, thanks for your perspective and will do. Czarking0 (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Tonghai, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czarking0, thanks for participating in the WikiCup. You recently submitted Talk:15.ai/GA2 for GANR points in the WikiCup. Unfortunately, this review is too short to qualify for points under Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#Good article nomination reviews. According to the rules, Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded round points. As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1000 bytes will be considered, though the judges reserve the right to decline other short reviews. Although quick fails of sufficient length may qualify for points, your review has only four short sentences, excluding the lengthy quote you pointed out. I will say, however, that the quick fail looks good; it just isn't long enough to receive points. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no worries missed that part of the rules thanks for the heads up Czarking0 (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding disruptive edits and misuse of tags. The thread is Disruptive behavior in Andreas Papandreou and elsewhere. The discussion is about the topic Topic. — A.Cython (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Samoht27 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pioneering AI in School Systems and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-Samoht27 (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czarking0! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! -Samoht27 (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As to this edit - the author is quoting a passage from Gardner in the title - it appears in the source as "Moulder[ing] into nothingness among the rocks": Sharpshooters in Gardner's Photographic Sketch Book of the Civil War - since it's a quote, I think Moulder[ing] into nothingness among the rocks should be in an inner set of quotation marks, like the "Make-Believe" in the Snyder source. Otherwise Dietzman's insertion of [ing] into the title doesn't make any sense. Hog Farm _talk 16:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Seems like WP:ONEEVENT. Also, the second citation is not a source.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Alfredo Juarez Zeferino and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by NiftyyyNofteeeee was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Alfredo Juarez Zeferino and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Setergh was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Fails WP:ANYBIO. This simply does not deserve an article and does not seem to have a significant effect.

Setergh (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Setergh:This is not how WP:ANYBIO works that is criteria for notability not criteria that must be met to grant notability. The article passes under WP:GNG. Preventing resubmission is just ridiculous. Czarking0 (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I can't find any guideline on this. Clarifying what you mean by this may help attract more gnomes and elves.

Thanks in advance, Selbsportrait (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VOICE thanks Czarking0 (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. An Internet to you, good Sir! Selbsportrait (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert this edit per WP:BRD. The cites are acceptable per WP:ABOUTSELF.--Launchballer 17:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and the article talk page is a better venue than mine for this discussion Czarking0 (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czarking0, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Czarking0 (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the section is weird because the situation is weird:

1. USDS falls under the Executive Office. If DOGE is now the USDS, that could protect it from Freedom Of Information Access obligations. Determining that question is not up to us, Trump or Musk: that's ongoing litigation.

2. The Trump administration tries to argue that Musk or DOGE has no authority. It just "follows orders". This has been disputed in court, and some legal challenges already succeeded. (Tweeting orders wasn't a good idea; leaving a documented trace wasn't either.) Again, not a question we as editors can ignore, or even less settle.

3. DOGE is arguing that it has no responsibility over DOGE members who are now part of other agencies. This led Jacob Altik, a DOGE member, presenting himself as from outside DOGE, which was misleading at best.

We don't know DOGE's obligations, its authority, or even who is part of it. Other legal issues can be shoveled in the Lawsuits page. This is a page about DOGE, and these questions rest on deciding what *is* DOGE. We can't determine these questions. We can only present them.

Does that make any sense to you? Selbsportrait (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the forum for discussing article content Czarking0 (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the place to address your cryptic comment. Selbsportrait (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed that you reviewed my article on Hamid Bovard, and I will go over it to make improvements.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could also review the article on Majid Azami and Persian Gulf Star Oil Company (PGSOC) and provide feedback for further improvement.

Thank you in advance! Razgura (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and will do,

Can you please remove the acronym from the title of PGSOC? WP:Requested_moves. I believe this in in violation of WP:AT Czarking0 (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Razgura: Other than that PGSOC looks good but I did AfD for Azami as I do not think it establishes notability. Czarking0 (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

😅 Whoa, I’m sorry I even asked... haha.

But seriously, I’ll work on improving the Majid Azami article and adding more solid sources. There’s actually quite a lot of coverage about him in Persian-language media, and I believe that can help establish notability.

Thanks for your time and patience 🙏 Razgura (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you added a {{More footnotes needed}} tag to Shelby (dog) here. In the version you checked, all of the references have a corresponding inline citation, so I am confused as to why you added this tag. The template is meant for articles with a list of references, but without any actual footnotes, which was not the case here. Wondering what was up with that? Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 03:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have added the tag back with the reason: All refs in Life section are grouped. Beginning of In Media missing ref. Again, that is not what the tag is for. It is for having a source listed, but no corresponding inline citation. Just because the references in a section are not staggered is not a valid reason for adding that tag. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I deprodded this. Proposed deletion is only for non-controversial topics. Take it to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political-Legal Research, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Czarking0 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Czarking0 for accumulating at least 25 points during the May 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 17,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	June 2025 AfC backlog drive award
	Thank you Czarking0 for participating in the June 2025 AfC backlog drive. Your dedication and sustained efforts in reducing the backlog and contributions to Wikipedia's content review process are sincerely appreciated! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For this edit, this was already reverted. The map was already restored by Alenoach. You just restored a second copy of the same map in the same section.

For this edit, with diagnosis and staying up to date with clinical guidelines. Professionals can use the chatbot for assistance was added a second time in the same sentence.

For this edit you added a verbatim copy of the exact same very lengthy bundle of sources.

Before issuing warning templates to more experienced editors, look at the edits you are reverting. Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czarking0,

I saw your comment on Star Mississippi's user talk page and I wanted to say that I hope you don't stop participating in AFD deletion discussions. We desparately need editors with a variety of opinions and approaches to editing to review and assess articles and their sources. It can be more difficult if you tend towards the inclusionist side as it is far easier to argue a flat "Delete" than go into details of why an article should be Kept. But that's why editors who lean that way are incredibly valuable to the process. Maybe take the long view towards the AFD process and accept that in some arguments you will prevail and on others others with a differing perspective will be the influential voices. But your participation is appreciated, at least by me. Thank you for your contributions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you are trying to do here. I am conveying feelings in a manner that borders on criticism of the AfD but I don't understand the process enough to say it is really a criticism. I think it would be easier to take the long view towards the AFD process and accept that in some arguments you will prevail and on others others with a differing perspective will be the influential voices if I thought either the other voters or the closer read my arguments (including the sources I indicated). I think the closer should read each of the votes and if the deletes say there are no sources or the sources are not sig cov and then someone votes keep with additional sources they claim are sig cov then the delete votes should be disregarded unless they indicate they looked at those sources. If that is not the norm then I really don't see why anyone would spend time finding sources. I also think I am probably not the first one to think this. Czarking0 (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In another place, I wrote: Rightly or wrongly I perceive an RfC or AfD or ANI as more of a debate than a scramble to support or oppose a particular opinion or suggestion or as a straw poll. But a debate on an Internet forum is not like sitting in a real debating chamber or on the jury benches where the voters are obliged to sit through the whole process first. The new AELECT system is an excellent compromise but for technical reasons can't be implemented for everyday discussions. I have started many RfC and voted on 100s and 100s more AfD. The actual process has always had me thinking how it could be improved. Unfortunately, for want of better systems, many of these voting-type discussions have stood the test of time mainly because the closures are generally more or less right, and secondly because Wikipedia does not like change - for example it has taken 14 years of discussion to arrive at the WP:AELECT as an alternative to RfA, and it took 7 long years to get WP:ACPERM done. ANI, the most regular of all voting-type discussions has been the subject of independent research several times but nothing has been done to improve its chaotic nature. My preferred solution to all these processes would be to have a 7-day non-voting period for comments, followed by 7 days for a straight 'Support, Oppose, Neutral' voting period. This would encourage participants to read the comments and make an informed decision. The closer would still read the consensus rather than the numbers. It would work for some of the discussions, but not all. Ideas? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly respect your idea and think it could work. However:

1. I think the glacial pace of change in WP indicates that individual ideas from either you or me are not likely to see wide adoption. More importantly than what you or I think are good ideas is how to generate any consensus around improving these processes. Maybe the way to do that would be to have the process that comes up with the idea for improvement be the same process that generates support for implementing it. I am not certain how to make that the case but I suspect it would start with some research into what potential changes have already been discussed, who supported and opposed them. Then, I think those wanting improvement should present their research findings in a platform which is likely to generate discussion like the village pump or something.
2. I am curious if the question of what it means to improve the process needs to be reflected on. I suspect that if point 1 is followed then there will be some reforms that are so broadly popular and obviously an improvement that this question will not need further reflection. On the other hand, some reforms which potentially could occur are likely to stoke reflection on the goal of reform itself. As a taste of what I mean consider two possible goals: have the people who vote be better informed of the different perspectives or have more people participate. I think some editors will support the first goal, some will support the second, some will support both, and I do not think any margin will oppose them entirely. The two goals are not mutual exclusive but they are in tension. I think your suggested reform does a decent job at working towards the first goal but it might actually detract from the second.
3. If you are more interested in what I think of your actual proposal, I will answer that here. I think at AfD there is no real time pressure (outside of some speedy votes which I think are outside the scope of this discussion) and the default consensus building process could very well be as you describe. Though actually building support for a fundamental change like that seems daunting and maybe unnecessary depending on one's views about how well the current AfD system works. Personally, I don't think it works that well and I think your proposal is better than the status quo but I suspect others might come up with an even better solution. However, where I think process reform is really needed is in the <1% of discussion like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar DePaço where the conversation is so long that reading it is something you need to make time for. However, it is not obvious apriori that a particular discussion will become like that. Implementing a process which changes based on how large it gets is inherently more complex. One way to do this would be to have size limits for discussions where the discussion in semi-automatically closed as no consensus when it gets too large and relisted under the new process. Back to your proposal, I think some RfC, for example, have more time pressure and your proposed reform is not conducive to quickly resolving debate. I am aware that there is some guideline about there not being a time crunch on wikipedia and of course one could implement your reform such that it is still subject to WP:SNOW but I foresee opposition to your proposal on similar grounds.
4. Lastly, I think as one works for a specific reform proposal they should reflect on what data should be collected to post-facto justify the reform and under what circumstances that data would show that the reform is not working. I think AELECT has done a decent job at that

Czarking0 (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All valid points. glacial pace of change in WP is almost an understatement. It took 14 years to get a substantial change to the RfA process since I started the ball rolling with the WP:RFA2011 project after even the Wikipedia founder called it a 'Horrible and broken process'. After a couple of years and harassment of the task force by trolls who are now banned, we gave up, but you can see the huge amount of research and gathering of statistics we did. AELECT was only achieved recently because one user who was determined to box it through is a skilled Media Wiki developer and took on the task of getting the secure poll software rolled out for local use. It took a very long time and many failed RfC and sub-RfC to get it done, but the result is extremely positive.

Your ElonMusk example is a classic case where a relatively small case of content can get totally out of hand where serious policy and procedural issues are very slow to gain traction - that said, WP:ACTRIAL garnered what are still probably the highest turnouts and massive consensus in history, only to be denied by the WMF for another 7 years until there were some changes n personnel there. and we made threats t do it our way anyway.

It is indeed ironic that a discussion about changing the RfC system (and other voting discussion pages) has to be done through the current RfC process!

I don't really believe that motions for change would succeed any time soon. It's a question of priorities and the actual number of regular 'back office' workers is staggeringly small considering the impact some RfC can have that are sometimes quietly passed with the consensus of only a handful of participants. As I mentioned, AfD gets it right most of the time, and the 'peanut gallery' would resist by force any changes to their permanent soap opera.

I have no designs on drafting or launching any such proposals because my days of that kind of thing are over. It's time for newer generations of Wikipedians to take the relay but I'll happily dive in and help out if anyone does; there's often no substitute for institutional memory. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I been letting these ideas stir for a bit. Is there a good write up somewhere of the AELECT movement from its beginnings who was involved how the movement evolved over time? Looking at the 2011 participant list, I wonder how many of those editors have the appetite to push for a new round of reforms? Czarking0 (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The community is agreed that AELECT is a vast improvement on the traditional system - no candidate can be so impatient that they can't wait for the next one, and if they are, then probably they shouldn;t be admins anyway. I think it now needs time for a few more runs before any trends can be extrapolated (one common annoyance on Wikipedia is that people are often too quick to jump to conclusions). All the RfA reform discussions are listed at RFA reform including the trilogy of articles in The Signpost in 2018 which were the result of significant research. The massive 2011 research which I led accumulated a lot of data which is still basically relevant (in principle) today, but no one used it on later attempts for reform. It's debatable if either using readily available research or completely starting over is the best approach. 2011 is a long time ago. Many have retired, or some are sadly no longer with us. If you drag your mouse over the user names you'll see who is still active, and if you're using the user group highlighter script you'll see what advanced rights they have. Yellow is for admins.

One place that is rife for reform is ANI. It could start by proposing that each case be started on its own sub page like AfD. That would vastly improve navigation and avoid most of the infuriating edit conflicts. The architecture is straightforward and requires no programming. Then one could consider cleaning up the participation. It really is a medieval village square replete with pillory and ducking stool where anyone can throw their rotten tomatoes whether qualified to join the discussion or not. For want of an analogy, it's a bit like if the pupils in a primary school were allowed to decide what to do with naughty children, from arbitrary after-school detentions or physical punishment, or to being permanently expelled. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about this in some more depth but the last part makes me wonder if know about Sudbury school Czarking0 (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Sudbury but for my postgrad teaching diploma I had to know about Waldorf and Montessori systems. My own education was ruled by prefects in an environment that was almost identical - right down to the school buildings - to that depicted a couple of years later in the 1968 cult movie If.... (except for the last scene!), yes, schools like that in England still existed well into the 80s, 'nuf said. Ideally IMO there should be a minimum requirement for the participation of non-involved users at ANI, but many of them are entrenched wannabe admins who never will be. ANI is the last bastion of administration accompanied by a form of inquisitorial justice for people and content, but don't get me started on Arbcom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think last question. I see that the 2024 RfA reform yielded the recall process. I do not see a 2025 page. This makes me think there is not a huge appetite for more RfA reform right now but there may well be in the somewhat near future (like 2026). On the other hand, I looked for Afd reform. I see this essay WP:IAFD, this very old and defunct page WP:ElC. This one I think is barely worth mentioning WP:AFDMERGE. I am sure a search of village pump archives would yield more discussions.

To me this seems like AfD has not had the level of effort put into its reform that RfA has had. This is almost certainly because it is not warranted. On the other hand, this does not mean that no reform would be beneficial to the project. Based on our discussion and inspired by phase 1/phase 2 split on WP:RFA2015. I think I will use these long AfDs as talking points for building consensus on what should be improved. To me the number one problem is that they are hard to read and feel like you have a good understanding of the debate. Once the Network of DOGE ones closes I think I will write something at village pump Czarking0 (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely no appetite for more more RfA reform right now. A huge effort was made to code and launch AELECT and the general consensus is that a very satisfactory new solution has been rolled out. This does not rule out any minor fine tuning. The future of RECALL is not so certain but there have to be more cases before any firm consesus for future tweaks emerges, but it is likely to stay. Some years ago I launched a communiy desysop project myself called WP:BARC. It gained consensus but not important enough to proceed to making it policy. Things like reform projects are, like my RFA2011, BARC, and WP:NPR generally launched by one individual who takes the initiative. They are mostly not backed by deep research but are more based on rumblings and grumblings. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For that last part do you think that is survivorship bias or what? Like have researched backed proposals been shot down or like is it the research itself takes a lot of effort, and it is effort of a different nature than motivated individuals like yourself or push through reform? Czarking0 (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Research backed proposals have a much better chance of succeeding, especially if the RfC statement is carefully worded and the terms of the RfC are cleary laid out in order to avoid the thing becoming a free-for-all of secondary suggestions and off topic comments. Research takes time, a lot of people are either to impatient to do it, just can't be bothered, or simply don't know how to obtain the data. In 2012 I even ran a full survey using Qualtrics of some 6,000 people who had been patrolling new pages before I finally decided, (due to further increases of abuse of patrolling from inexperienced users) to launch an RfC for creating an WP:NPR user group four years later. All RfC (for the principle and for the details) passed smoothly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't know if you are already aware of this but here is another big ongoing AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network of the Department of Government Efficiency Czarking0 (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now that the second one is closed here is my thoughts on a survey for the participants. If you are interested can you tell me your thoughts on the questions? What would you add/remove/modify?

I can also move the write up I was not sure where a good place is? Czarking0 (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HI. I saw your draft. However, I don't think participants would be interested in such a survey. Surveys are very rare anyway on Wikipedia and don't go down too well with the editors. Once an AfD has been closed, that's the end of it. Your ideas are good, and over the years I've had many too but one has to take into account the time/benefit of launching such ideas. In hinsight, after nearly 20 years on Wikipedia, after an AfD I prefer to get back to writing new articles or getting articles to GA. I'll probably help out on the September NPP backlog drive. I have a solid plan that would keep the backlog really low and encourage new users to submit articles that stand a good chance of being accepted, but although it's done bar the paperwork, I don't have the time for the hassle of a drawn out RfC to get it approved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to List of People Who Worked For Thomas Edison. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at ChatGPT shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly changing content—in a back-and-forth fashion—back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this stage is to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand, not to engage in edit-warring. Wikipedia provides a page that details how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Repeatedly re-adding unsourced text to the lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate your expanding the paragraph on the ABA guide on using ChatGPT. I also noticed your made comments on news-related edits regarding a recent lawsuit, citing WP:NOTNEWS. You also mentioned other policies may apply. Can you share what these policies you had in mind? Thanks. Path2space (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and thanks for the discussion. Though if this wades more into ChatGPT specifically I will move the discussion to the article talk page.

In no particular order,

1. Not actually a policy but relevant here WP:CRITS
2. ChatGPT has been subject to scrutiny regarding its potential impact on mental health and user safety a past tense was is often preferable to the passive has been.
3. There is a floating ^{[by whom?]} here. Maybe it is a notable opinion or even a fact? Either an actual opinion should be attributed or the fact should be stated. If the fact really is that it has been subject to scrutiny then I think that is undue weight there are many existing claims in the article showing downsides. If the claim is specific to scrutiny for the mental health impact then this is still undue weight. You can refer to the prior discussion on mental health coverage on the talk page for why.
4. AI chatbots reinforcing delusions the due weight of this was already rejected on talk page

Czarking0 (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the thoughts. I did not make the removed edits but happened to see your summary. Thanks. Path2space (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I am also open to the talk page consensus moving as new sources are brought up. Czarking0 (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I appreciate that you're standing up for using reliable sources on the Ammar page. Unfortunately the user Paul follows a similar pattern in other articles to. He uses low quaility referencs, often blog posts and then reverts useful edits. It's really frustrating. In my opinion, the use of bad referencs undermine the whole Wikipedia. Also sometimes he just planet misrepresents or misunderstands what the original reference says.

Talk:Maria Guyomar de Pinha

He's also actie here now and continue revert useful edits

I'm not sure why he's doing it or what kind of agenda he's pushing. I'm only interested in two things that is that proper references and sources are used and that they are used correcly and that the information on wiki can actually be found in the sources. I don't know if you could consider taking a look at what Paul is doing or continue being active in the ammar discussion for example because he doesn't even let me change a coconut reference about a complete different person and in anyways that coconut reference is just an online gossip blog and shouldn't even be used... nevermind that it's even about a completly different person haha 220.147.123.41 (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but I am not an admin. I think you may have a good point but I am not the person you should take this to. I recommend WP:DR. Czarking0 (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you anyway. 220.147.123.41 (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czarking0. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Pioneering AI in School Systems, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czarking0. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Sam Altman at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! GoldRomean (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Bridge for GA, are you interested in reviewing it? I've tried using GA review circles in the past, but the reviews can sometimes be shallow and cursory. I noticed Thomas Edison is also nominated ... I'd be happy to review that. If you don't like the idea reviewing each other's articles, that is fine ... I know some editors prefer not to do so. Regardless, Thomas Edison looks like a great article! Noleander (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I like to encourage circles though not 1-to-1 circles. I just did Agate to support GAR though I am certainly willing to review Bridge as well. Though, I won't be able to start a GAR until 9/23 because I am busy. Czarking0 (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'll give the review circles a try again, Last time it was nothing but pop music but maybe I'll have better luck this time :-) Noleander (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment of the drawbacks to circles. I avoid celebrity content like sports, music, and movies. I pulled Agate from the table on the nominations page after sorting by R/G count and scrolling down to topics I care about. Czarking0 (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding page protection on the Ammar article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammar_Siamwalla There is not disruptive editing etc just removing irrelevant sources like PhD thesis etc and non reliable Facebook posts. There has been requests for page protecion in the past that has been denied and it has been said to be discussed in the talk pages. Instead some Members insist on using non allowed sources without discussing. 118.103.63.137 (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page OpenAI, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I asked you to restore sources before I reverted and your response was just to revert back to your preferred version it seems rather alarming you're citing the contentious nature of the topic in your edit summary. I actively tried to avoid back-and-forth editing while you're refusing to compromise. I would suggest you should be more collaborative. Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is my first revert on this article. I don't think I am running afoul of any contentious topic procedures. If you think I am mistaken about that I am happy to self-rv Czarking0 (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This started because I asked you to self-rv a contentious removal and you refused. If you restore the material sourced to SPLC I'd be satisfied. You had no policy based justification to remove it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK you really need to stop with this massive overhaul that seems to be downplaying the extent to which this nazi is a nazi. Please seek consensus before completely rewriting this page. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's focus on the content, what changes are of issue? Sorry I thought this was the article talk page. What conduct are you addressing here? You just want me to stop editing the page? Czarking0 (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss massive changes on article talk and get affirmative consensus before making them. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of questions for you about the AfD survey you're advertising. First off, what made you choose me as a participant? Second, what are you looking to achieve here? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I choose you because XTools listed you as a participant on either of the two AfDs the survey is focused on. Since I am doing the legwork and survey design I am trying to make something broadly useful to present at village pump that other people can interpret. I do have some ideas about what would make AFD better. In particular I am interested in improving large AfDs like the two the survey presently focuses on. However, I want to keep specific ideas to myself and let others determine what if anything there is some level of consensus to address after reviewing this case study. I tried to keep the questions broad enough that this data could be useful for others. I think by saying my specific ideas I could bias the survey which is not my intention. If you think any of the questions are bad for whatever reason I would like to hear that as well. Czarking0 (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should make a separate subpage for your survey (similar to Wikipedia:Editor reflections, but in your userspace). Some1 (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying but it is a little late for that I just manually sent out hundreds of these notices. Do you think there is a good way to do that mid process? If not I plan on organizing it better after I have the responses Czarking0 (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An option could be to modify the User:Czarking0#Survey message on your userpage to include a link to the Survey subpage. Some1 (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to specify how you found someone in your survey invite; a lot of the people you're messaging may not be regular AfD participants. Cheers - GoldRomean (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done adding to new invites Czarking0 (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have picked the DePaço AfD. That subject matter is sensitive. —Alalch E. 02:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to be the closer on DePaco, not a participant, which is why I found it a bit odd :) I respect the urge for reform, but I'll warn you that attempting to reform a process as a relative outsider/newcomer often draws resentment from those with significant experience in the process--I speak from experience. I also agree with Alalch that the DePaco AfD is not an example of a typical AfD; in fact it might be one of the least typical AfDs ever. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated but I think it is wild that after years of editing, multiple GA, and nearly 10,000 edits I still get called an outsider/newcomer. That is probably one of the issues with WP culture.

Regarding "That subject matter is sensitive" and "might be one of the least typical AfDs" I am surprised it is not obvious to you both that I already know that and specifically choose it for those reasons. Czarking0 (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dege31 (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I find this a bit insulting. Besides the fact that although Admins should also edit articles, I have spent a lot of my time simply working on poor articles on archaeological topics, mainly pseudoarchaeological ones. Improving many articles is just as important, if not more so, that bringing one \to GAR. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing, I appreciate your contributions to the project. Czarking0 (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to revert every edit I make to Nick Fuentes. Reliability is always contextual so WP:GREL may not be sufficient to assert reliability in context. Please show a bit more nuance in the future. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sorry, I also opened a thread about this on your page. I agree with you in part here. Of course, you are right about reliability being in context. On the other hand I am sure you were not surprised to have your removal on the basis that a WP:GREL is not RS in your opinion reverted. Since I am not the person that added that content to the article I am clearly not the only person that thinks it is due for inclusion. Czarking0 (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be sourcing BLP details to singular tabloids. Even ones that were convenient enough for certain editors to allow them to survive an RfC at RS/N. If that is what the sourcing is like then WP:UNDUE likely applies. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, in case you were unaware I just wanted to let you know that you can nominate multiple pages for merging at once if you expect few replies like what happened at Talk:Energy Security Act. FaviFake (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Czarking0 (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

nw FaviFake (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What inspired you to create your AfD survey? Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 02:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On this page there is a thread above this one called "Voting on discussions". The survey comes from that conversation Czarking0 (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		This award is given to Czarking0 for accumulating at least 3 points in the October 2025 GAN Backlog Drive. Your dedicated reviews contributed to the successful reduction of the backlog and helped improve the quality of articles. Here's our token of appreciation. Thank you for your time and efforts, and hopefully we'll see you soon again! Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention to source-text integrity and neutrality in Talk:Kash Patel/GA2 was particularly impressive. IAWW (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Czarking0 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for cleaning up the edits!! I'll try to breakdown my edits into smaller parts next time... The Account 2 (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh I do not really think what I did was needed. There was an LLM-generated tag on the article placed after your edit which surprised me but I think we are past that now. Czarking0 (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czarking0. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jia Qian, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Thomas Edison is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PeriodicEditor -- PeriodicEditor (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jia Qian, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ChrysGalley was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Thank you for your effors so far. Actually with a small amount of work, this subject would be OK for notability and sourcing, but the key fact has not been mentioned in the draft but which is in the sole source. Namely that by accepting Salazar's credentials the USA implied recognition of Gran Colombia/Republic of Colombia (Spence Robertson page 191), which was a big deal for newly independent Colombia/GC. Thus WP:ANYBIO - criteria 2, historical record. But that's not in the draft, which in any case would benefit from more sources and context. I hope the submitting editor can continue their endeavours so that we can learn more.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:José M. Salazar and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ChrysGalley (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chrys, I think you are factually wrong in this comment. The US had already recognized Gran Colombia with the meeting between Torres and Monroe prior to Salazar's appointment. This is covered in the Torres page and to me your point is an odd one to make about the second ambassador. Czarking0 (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Czarking0 - the source and footnote 27 I think gives an account of Colombia's pleasure, with a quote to boot, which of course could be incorrect. Looking at the timing, the second ambassador was posted after inaugural events in GC/RoC so I can see how that fits in for this particular ambassador.

But in terms of AFC, I'm trying to move the article from WP:GNG, in which case multiple sources are needed, to WP:ANYBIO criteria 2, where notability is presumed so long as it is sourced. (To be less formal, I'm trying to make your life easier). But feel free to resubmit it, another AFC editor could take a different view. And many thanks for the work so far. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the quote but that is a cordial letter. The official recognition occurred a few months prior. I was shooting for ANYBIO or NPOL on this one but after rereading NPOL I think this needs to hit anybio. This creation was just a quick hit as part of my larger recent effort on Venezuela. I think it currently is presumed notable though the sigcov issue is valid. Czarking0 (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally it's American ambassadors that get under NPOL due to the Senate process (which in turn generates sources anyway). Most other countries don't ratify ambassadors via that sort of process, so ANYBIO is indeed where you need to concentrate in my view. But yes, SIGCOV is another issue, but there's probably something else out there (somewhere.....). People don't just rise from nowhere to be ambassador. ChrysGalley (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a fun fact, a full 20% of Columbia's legislature was illiterate at that time. So there tends to be a lack of written accounts Czarking0 (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Thomas Edison has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PeriodicEditor -- PeriodicEditor (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Thomas Edison at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Not sure this merits it's own article. Feel free to place it into a new Section under the existing Large Language Model article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Context Window and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

qcne (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas to you! Also, side note, I just found out a China-Russia Wikimedia map I created is used in Twitter discussions. Truly interesting stuff lol. The Account 2 (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Czarking0, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheInevitables was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Roger Rondon and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TheInevitables (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheInevitables FYI I actually think this is a bad decline - as per WP:NPOLITICIAN national politicians are inherently notable. It's not a greatly written draft (and Venezuelanalysis is an unreliable source) which might be a decline reason, but the references do show notability. qcne (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Context Window, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Czarking0 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you tagged Metaring for speedy deletion. I have removed the tag from the page because it does not meet the criterion or criteria specified. Please fully read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion before tagging pages for speedy deletion. Thank you. Also Embrace Dignity. For G5 has to be created by a sockpuppet after the master has been blocked. That applies to neither article here. Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:15, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are the one that should reread. G5 does not require the page to have been created by a sock. That is only one instance it which it can be used Czarking0 (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

G5 for blocked users:

To qualify for a ban- or block-based speedy deletion, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted or expired will not qualify under this criterion. (emphasis mine)

When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others); this is the most common case for applying G5.

Just because the user is now blocked doesn't qualify for G5. What provision under G5 are you using? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:23, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The page was created while the user was blocked Czarking0 (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, those were created by the user before the user was blocked. Metaring, last edit by user Dec 8, blocked Dec 17. ...Dignity, last edit by user Dec 8, blocked Dec 9. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah you are right, how are you pulling that? I just checked all that manually. Czarking0 (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Userpage, then select User->Block->Block log. That's the most reliable way to identify the date of the block. At least that's how I do it. I'm an admin, so you may not have the same view. In general, a completely blocked user cannot edit, so any edits by that user under that account occur before or after the block. That's why I referred to sockpuppets. Almost always, it's a sock that's making the edits in violation of a block of the user. That's the only way a user gets around a block. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right, then how are you checking that they are a sock? Same page? I am thinking the NPP script could be modified to not offer g5 if the block is not a sock. That way myself and others using it do not need to check that. Czarking0 (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the block message states that they were a sockpuppet, I then check the sockmaster's block date to see if it were prior to the page creation date. I know of no automated way of checking for this.

Also, I haven't used the NPP script in years. Could you discuss this issue at the NPP talk page or script talk page and see if others are having this issue? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're still making errors. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=AKLKPhilo&type=block . The user was unblocked Aug 19 then reblocked Dec 9. Garcia's Pizza In a Pan was edited Dec 1, so was not made while the user was blocked. Same issue with Sign of The Beefcarver. Please stop tagging for G5 until you are sure you are doing it correctly. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you tagged Tanvi Patri for speedy deletion. I have removed the tag from the page because it does not meet the criterion or criteria specified. Please fully read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion before tagging pages for speedy deletion. Thank you. You're continuing to misapply G5. Stop now. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Author is a blocked sock. I am not misunderstanding the criteria. Stop telling me to reread it Czarking0 (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the master is not blocked. A blocked sock's contributions are only eligible for G5 if the contributions occur after the one of the accounts is blocked. These contributions were before the blocks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, this is an odd circumstance, but you have to look at the timing of the blocks versus the timing of the edits. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Look I, a human, am not going to sign up to do a bot's work. Your since removed stop now comment was obviously a threat to admin action. I think it is ridiculous to threat an editor like myself to protect the obviously bad faith and bad quality work I have nominated G5 since technically (some BS that probably should not be the rule anyway).

I will boycott NPP until I can use the tools with a reasonable division of labor between bot and not.

If my G5 nominations are incorrect that should not be brought by you coming to my talk page and threatening me.

That should be resolved by a bot automatically reverting it.

This is no more worthy of admin action than deleting the definition of a named ref. It is an obvious mistake that should be fixed by bots rather than wasting the time of admins or myself. Czarking0 (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that the "stop now" came across as threatening. I had and have no intent to act against you for those mistaken tags.

I had asked you to stop tagging until you were sure you were doing it correctly, but you didn't stop. That's why I became exasperated. Remember, admins are volunteers too. When you ask for a G5, you need to know that you are making a valid request. There are no "bots" that can do the task for lots of reasons--in short, the wikipedia software does not support a reasonable workflow for this sort of task. And remember that when I respond to a G5 request, I have to do the research again, though it is quicker if the requester includes the name of the sockmaster in the request (Twinkle includes a field for that). The admin is ultimately responsible for the deletion and has to assure themself that the deletion request is valid.

You must not only identify that the article creator is blocked, but also that the sockmaster was blocked at the time of article creation for G5 to be valid. This means doing some research on each potential G5. If you don't want to do the research, that's fine, just skip those articles when patrolling and let someone else handle them.

I had to come and tell you about the issue. Ignoring this would let this problem fester and build into even more wasted time for others. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for your volunteering as well. FYI there is now a Phabricator related to these proposed changes. In talking about this with another editor I know in person they suggested that when a SPI yields blocks that a script just runs to G5 all articles from that account with less than a threshold number of edits from other accounts created before some date which the blocker can input. Czarking0 (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good use of a sidebar. We don't need a sidebar for something like this. If you convert this to a navbox and add them to the bottom of the articles, you will avoid a Tfd for this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czarking0. Thank you for your work on Context window. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Your contributions are greatly appreciated, have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 01:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 13:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Reform UK on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 02:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at User talk:HermanWanggai on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

can't go forward with the tags unanswered

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Roger Rondon and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, a link pointing to the disambiguation page was H2-Aadded.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:President of South Korea on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 16:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 January 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Edison, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Thomas Edison made talking dolls? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Edison. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas Edison), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For the restructuring of the article OpenAI and careful condensing of the article ChatGPT (two highly-viewed articles). Alenoach (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It has been a pleasure to work alongside you. Czarking0 (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You were the third person to revert me and that's the minimal definition of "several". Just say "three". Matt Gies (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry when I said discuss on talk I meant article talk Talk:ChatGPT Czarking0 (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

John Gray (trapper), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Netherzone (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czarking0; You appear to be reverting multiple times for fully sourced material on the Project 2025 page. The use of tables and list of names and subjects is common to Wikipedia which is not limited to Prose expression alone. See the Kissinger article for his 'Awards and honors' section which presents a list of his accomplishments using a similar double column format. Your next revert will be three reverts which is against Wikipedia without your starting Talk on this issue. The list is fully cited. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Phase 2 of the January–February 2026 NPP drive. During Phase 1, we reviewed 16,658 articles and 4,416 redirects, and there is currently a backlog of 16,475 articles and 23,782 redirects in the queue. Fantastic job! Completing 22,502 patrols in the first phase made a significant dent in the backlog. Let's keep our foot on the gas for Phase 2, and I hope we can achieve even more reviews than Phase 1. Best of luck!

You are receiving this message because you added your name to the participants list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Czarkingo! I noticed that for your review of T. Elliot Gaiser, you didn't mark the word count on the drive page. Please mark this in the future to make it easier for coordinators to give you extra word count points! This is probably just a tiny thing you missed, but thought I might as well remind you! I'll look at the page history and estimate the word count best as I can so you still get your points! Crystalite13 (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Crystalite, the idea of humans spending their time estimating how many words are on a page is borderline disgusting to me. However, I am not one to only complain. I have just updated this module to automatically count words on a page and updated my section on the drive to use it. I also updated the template at the top to use my module. Czarking0 (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dang. Crystalite13 (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mmemaigret was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Suggest read WP:42 and WP:CORPTRIV.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pikes Peak Outdoor Recreation Alliance and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MmeMaigret (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is a sock of Shadowfax33. Note the timing of the ban and creation of the new account. Notice the fantasyname## format. Notice both accounts editing Christian Nationalism related pages mainly. Hope this help re-remove a banned white supremacist. ~2026-89842-7 (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please open an investigation at WP:SPI under Shadowfax33 and tag me in it. Czarking0 (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A brief look at the SPI tools shows no interactions between these accounts but I am no expert on SPI Czarking0 (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify how this account is associated with other accounts on wikipedia and/or signin to respond? Czarking0 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary accounts can not file SPI reports unfortunately.

Shadowfax33 edited about Nick Fuentez and Catholicism from a political perspective.

Hours after being banned, Bladerunner24 was created, with a focus on the intersection of American politics and Catholicism.

Both users are semi frequent page creators, which is especially interesting for the much "less experienced" Shadowfax33 sock.

And of course, Shadowfax is a fantasy horse from Lord of the Rings, where Bladerunner is a fantasy movie as well.

Look at this first edit - [1], seems like a standard new editor right?

Then right into lots of llm based editing, i.e. [[2]] linking to other wikis as sources. Then, back to writing articles about how Catholics are oppressed - [3]. They speak in a similar fashion, but seem to be using more LLM now.

~2026-90761-2 (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits also seem quite standard for a new editor. Why use an LOUTSOCK? Czarking0 (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also why come to me, this seems like canvassing Czarking0 (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Temporary accounts can not file SPI reports" Where do you see this? I do not see this Czarking0 (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To make a SPI report with a temp account "they have to make it in the wikipedia talk: space if it's a new page creation and ask autoconfirmed user to move it". I will move it if you make it Czarking0 (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Polymarket on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 09:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 12:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article ChatGPT is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Crystalite13 -- Crystalite13 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It was nice to see a voice of reason at the recent AN threat; the proposal there is quite weird. I think Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_209#h-Seeking_clarification_on_WP:NEWLLM_regarding_human-reviewed_translations-20260103140900 ended up with no closure? Is there some other place this is still being discussed? @User:7804j _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I feel likewise even though I do not agree 100% with everything you said. One of my fears for these big WP threads is that they turn into nonsense echo chambers like a reddit thread. Disagreement is healthy. I am not sure where else is is being discussed, but I think more discussion on OKA would be good for the community. Czarking0 (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There have been past RFCs, I think, or at least discussions here and there, although I don't recall all of them. OKA has been controversial, since it involves $$$, and now, AI. "We are paying AIs to write Wikipedia content" headline will always generate a lot of buzz :P

Might be good to have all discussion listed somewhere (OKA has its own project page - probably there...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Feeding Our Future on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 02:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You blanked John T. D. Keyes and then prodded it. Please don't do that. You can blank and redirect, or you can prod, but do not blank and prod. Thank you, MediaKyle (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Says you? There is no rule against that Czarking0 (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PAGEBLANKING ... Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly Czarking0 (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to waste your time making the encyclopedia worse by protecting terrible biographies then be my guest Czarking0 (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Czarking0, I didn't mean to offend you. I have no problem with you taking it to AfD. I probably won't even vote. I was just correcting the problem of the page being blanked... The relevant passage in the guideline is If you think an article has no useful content, then either fix it, or else leave it in its present state and propose it for deletion. (emphasis mine). I hope you understand. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right but I don't "think an article has no useful content" I think it has content actively harmful to the project. You are too zealous in your application of this rule and would be a better help to the project spending your time on something else. Czarking0 (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:La France Insoumise on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 15:31, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article ChatGPT has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Crystalite13 -- Crystalite13 (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring ChatGPT (estimated annual readership: 43,000,000) to good article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Crystalite13 (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Woot! Thanks! Czarking0 (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Albert Cashier on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 16:30, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
• MCE89 (submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
• Rollinginhisgrave (submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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 Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Soham murders on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 16:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Signpost Barnstar
		For contributing in the Newsroom, in a column, or both! Vol. 22 issue 4 turned out pretty great thanks to a team that was fortunate to include you.

☆ Bri (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had some complications IRL and didn't manage to answer you before my topic on Practical Fishkeeping was archived. Physella acuta ended up being promoted to FA even with the active discussion about the source, but I still implemented your suggestion since it was pretty sound. So thank you! :) Barbalalaika 🐌 17:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czarking0. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Pioneering AI in School Systems".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czarking0. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hu Zhongle, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Czarking0 responding to your message on Kewsong Lee's talk page. Institutional Investor has been around for nearly 60 years and is a well-read and respected editorial outlet covering the institutional investors industry. I disagree that it isn’t reliable.

Where do you see that it was originally published on LinkedIn?

Nbaderrubenstein (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article ChatGPT is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of WhaleFarm -- WhaleFarm (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have begun reviewing the GA nomination for ChatGPT and left comments on the review page. The nomination has been placed on hold while the issues are addressed. WhaleFarm (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article ChatGPT has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of WhaleFarm -- WhaleFarm (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Stella O'Malley on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 13:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, WeirdNAnnoyed, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Sorry, but I don't see how a WP:ROTM school district project is encyclopedia-worthy. School districts announce initiatives like this all the time, they get some local media coverage, and that's it. Perhaps Ref. 5 is significant (though it reeks of churnalism to me), but I would like to see some WP:LASTING coverage before putting this in WP.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Pioneering AI in School Systems to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weird of you to talk about local coverage when the sources are ChalkBeat and GovTech Czarking0 (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lasting applied to events which this is not Czarking0 (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition of Czarking0 for accumulating at least 25 points in the January–February 2026 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped review 27,750 articles and 7,050 redirects during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and helping reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer ■ 16:51, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czarking0. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Hu Zhongle".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:American expansionism under Donald Trump on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 19:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	This award is given to Czarking0 for accumulating at least 7 points in the February 2026 GAN Backlog Drive. Your dedicated reviews contributed to the successful reduction of the backlog and helped improve the quality of articles. Here's our token of appreciation. Thank you for your time and efforts, and hopefully we'll see you soon again! Fade258 (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [4]

Thanks for your comment, but please !vote in the survey just below it; otherwise it will be impossible to know which version of the statement you prefer, and you won't be counted at all. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 00:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don't wish to be counted? That's your right, but why not? ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 00:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My vote should still count there process you are referring to is not real closing criteria Czarking0 (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article ChatGPT has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of WhaleFarm -- WhaleFarm (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is NBER working paper.The discussion is about the topic ChatGPT. Thank you. --Uhoj (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was interested to see your statement on your user page that you expect admins to nominate articles for removal from GA. This was because I can't remember a similar standard around adminship or similar processes based on improving the project by potentially removing recognition from articles that no long meet the criteria; normally this kind of criteria is about promoting content. So I was wondering how many admins have nominated something for GAR in the last two years. If my quarry is right it's 16 admins who might not cause you to support their removal. If you expand that to FLR and GAR it's 27. Since I thought you might be interested in how many admins meet your criteria I thought I'd share this information with you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you are right I changed the page, I meant any admin that has neither written nor reviewed any GAN in the past two years Czarking0 (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czarking0,

I’ve seen some of your work on the "Open AI" article and really appreciate the care you put into it.

I’m currently doing a PhD research, and I’m inviting you to take part in a short online interview (about 45–70 minutes).

Hearing about your experience would genuinely be very valuable for my research.

If you might be open to it, feel free to contact me by my email.

I’d be happy to share more details. No pressure at all.

Best,

Wei Czarking0 (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are already aware of my concerns about the quality of this review. Please note that I have given the co-ordinators a heads-up, but I'd prefer to see how things progress before taking it further. Jack (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Starting off by saying that I appreciate, truly, your doing AI cleanup work.)

Just wanted to let you know that there are people who are warning that they will remove any AI-generated templates from articles if there are not also parallel discussions started on the talk page, so unfortunately, it looks like you have to tag articles in two places now. I know it's a waste of time, I'm just the messenger here. I'm currently going down the list of currently-tagged articles and doing this for past tags so they don't get drive-by deleted. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Candidates/Taking Out The Trash#Optional questions from Czarking0 is appropriate. Do you think you could re-write that to be less stigmatizing against people with mental health problems, which includes a very large fraction of our community? For example, maybe you could focus the question more on what matters in practice (like sometimes being slow to respond) instead of repeating "poor mental health". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed those questions a AELECT monitor action. Sohom (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some policy against asking these questions? I think you need to WP:AGF. Czarking0 (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer if I use the phrase "mental health issues" as the candidate has stated on their userpage? Czarking0 (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'd prefer that you talked about the effects rather than the cause. For example:

• N Don't ask: "You have a banner on your user page warning others of your poor mental health. Why should editors want more admins with poor mental health?"
• Y Do ask: "you have a banner on your user page warning others of your limited capacity to respond in a timely fashion. Why should editors want more admins with limited capacity to respond in a timely fashion?"

Why the editor (claims to) have limited capacity to respond in a timely fashion is unimportant. What matters is that the editor claims to have limited capacity to respond in a timely fashion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czarking0. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:José M. Salazar, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Czarking0, I see that you are a member of WP:Companies. I recently suggested a few updates to the Bridgewater Associates page and would appreciate it if you could take a look: Talk:Bridgewater Associates#Updates to "History" and "Products" sections. A neutral editor added a small portion of the request and I have updated the request to reflect that. If you agree with the additions please make the edits. Thanks! Jaren Laurel Strategies (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czarking0. I am taking care of the COI editor's request for updating Bridgewater hedge fund. She (he?) left a request on my talk page about a week ago. I am familiar with hedge funds from my past employment for Izzy at Millennium (long ago in the early mid-1990s) and about Ray Dalio, see here and especially here, all authored by me IRL... bwahaha.

Hope all is well with you. You seem to be doing a good job as an editor. I enjoyed working with you on the Clearview article aways back.--FeralOink (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey so nice to hear from you, I hope you are doing well as well! I am bit less active editing right now. I am figuring out how I feel about some topics. Particularly the WMF recent actions and the WWWU which I have not yet supported. I was editing Flock Safety recently which I thought has some nice similarities to the writing of Clearview.

I mostly agree with your Review of the Ray Dalio book and yet I somehow still enjoyed it. I'd be happy to add you on goodreads if you send an email. I have a strong interest in China and have been learning Chinese. User:The Account 2 does some amazing work. On their talk page archive there is a nice book discussion between us if you are interested in more China oriented books. I am still working on America Against America which I find to be a challenging read. Czarking0 (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

John B123 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Czarking0,

Backlog update

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

2024 and 2025 NPP Awards

JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.

Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

BoyTheKingCanDance, Rosiestep, SunDawn, and Vanderwaalforces were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

January–February backlog drive

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

May backlog drive

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026.

PageTriage

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nicolas de Staël on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 21:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Czarking0. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:El Palito oil refinery, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]