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:
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.
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.
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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
We are both traveling for the holidays. I agreed with you on a couple of proposed deletions, but not this one. I'm deprodding it and we can discuss it at WP:AfD after the new year. Safe travels! Bearian (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2024 (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]
Hi Czarking0 - thanks for reviewing Draft:Gary L. Comstock. You wrote that the draft doesn’t meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria to qualify for a Wikipedia article. I’m hoping you’ll take another look because according to Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Specific criteria notes, he meets two of the criteria.
1. Comstock holds a distinguished professor appointment from North Carolina State University, the largest educational institution in the Carolinas with the highest possible Carnegie Classification (R1) for a research institution.
According to WP:NACADEMIC an academic is notable if The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
This fact is supported by Comstock's official bio published by North Carolina State University. Per WP:NACADEMIC For documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source.
Already, you can see that he qualifies under NACADEMIC. But he also satisfies a second criterion:
2. Comstock was a fellow at the National Humanities Center, a highly selective institute for advanced studies in the humanities founded by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
According to WP:NACADEMIC an academic is notable if The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics).
From the draft: From 2007-2009, Comstock was an ASC Fellow at the National Humanities Center, where he also served as Editor-in-Chief of the center’s On the Human project.
This fact is supported by a publication of the National Humanities Center. Per NACADEMIC: For documenting that a person has been elected member or fellow (but not for a judgement of whether or not that membership/fellowship is prestigious), publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source.
So you can see that Comstock qualifies as notable under two criteria which are properly supported by sources per the policy.
NACADEMIC makes allowances for primary sources because unlike people like CEOs or celebrities, academics are less likely to be covered in secondary media sources. I’m sure you’re familiar with Good Articles, which are Wikipedia articles that meet a core set of editorial standards. I would invite you to look at any GA’s about academics for an example of how primary sources are used in these circumstances. Here are two in Comstock’s field: Gary Varner and John Hadley (philosopher).
I’ve made a slight change to the draft, moving Comstock’s Fellowship appointment into the Lead. Now both of the criteria that qualify him as notable are prominently placed. Would you like to look it over?
Hi Roy, I appreciate you coming to my talk page when you believe I have made a mistake. I take the matter seriously and I will review again Czarking0 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing I agree with your first point here. You said you made a change to the lead but the draft says it has not been edited since I edited it. Do you need to publish your edits still? Czarking0 (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. You're quick on the draw! You must have checked it right before I published it. It should be updated now. Would you kindly check again? Thanks. Roy Louis (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, will you please click the Resubmit button at the bottom of the red block indicating my denial and fill out the form the same way you did last time you submitted it? Then I will approve Czarking0 (talk) 21:27, 4 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.
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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Project 2025, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christopher Miller. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
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]
Please note that I have chosen to use WP:FOLLOWING as the title of this topic rather than one of its alternative short-forms. In the last few days, you have apparently "followed" me from Talk:Nicias/GA1 to Talk:Heinz Vietze/GA1 to Talk:Nannau Hall/GA1. This is apart from your visits to Talk:Nicias after that GA review was terminated at my request.
I believe in following due process, and am taking the advice of WP:DWH to discuss things first, as this is an "on-wiki matter". So, I have one question.
Your reaction to my comments on Talk:Nicias/GA1 made me think that you are not a very good judge of GAC and not very good at GAR. The integrity of the GA "brand" is important to me and seeing as you are a new editor in general and new to GAR in particular I wanted to point out more examples of things I think you missed during GAR that should be addressed before promotion. The timing after your posts is mostly random. If you look at when I comment it is a part of larger "sessions" where I typically comment on multiple articles Czarking0 (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, I apologise for not replying sooner. I saw your response this morning but something else cropped up, and I had to set it aside. I have read the relevant procedures covering this sort of situation, and have taken some good advice. As in the real world, discussion is the best way forward.
Taking your final comment first, I completed my Nannau Hall review on the evening of 7 March, and posted the report at 20:50. At 22:07, just 77 minutes later, you made your first edit of the day by responding to the report. I do not believe anyone could have thoroughly reviewed that article in such a short time. In the next seven minutes, you made a brief reply to another editor in Talk:Hassan Nasrallah and removed four entries from Project 2025#External_links. You did not edit again for over 24 hours. Your comments at Nannau Hall were by no means part of a large session as your work on the other two articles amounted to minor edits only. The timing cannot possibly be seen as "random".
Your comments about Heinz Vietze were posted eight hours after the review, and you had just been in brief communication with SafariScribe about their rejection of your Draft:Chen Tonghai. This was nearly three hours after you submitted that draft, so I presume you read Vietze during the interval? Even so, your Vietze input was hardly part of a large session either.
You say that the integrity of the GA brand is important to you. In that case, you should be seeking to improve your own performance within reviews. I see there are some editors who have performed hundreds of GA reviews, but are they infallible? Not at all, because there will always be an article quite unlike anything they have ever seen before, and no one is perfect. We never stop learning.
When I perform a review professionally (albeit those are subject to quite different criteria and circumstances), I always seek to engage with the author so that we can jointly bring the submission up to standard. That approach is more important on a site like this where there is no face-to-face, nor even verbal, contact. When you posted your comments at the Vietze review, you made no attempt to engage with the author and your questions were posted in the form of an interrogation, rather than of a polite interest.
For example: "Who is the enemy in the quote? Should that Hartz IV campaign be mentioned? Also, to tell newly elected SED General Secretary Egon Krenz to resign well did he? Why was he telling Egon Krenz to resign?"
I think that sort of approach, especially the "well did he?" bit, is unnecessarily aggressive and is a breach of WP:CIVIL.
I suppose I must care about the GA brand too because I wrote to you and asked you to modify your tone and show more respect for other editors. I also pointed out that there was no need for you to ask the author about Krenz because I had already done it in the review, the difference being that I asked politely. So, I could say my request to you was an attempt to protect the integrity of the GA brand because we don't want new nominators to be discouraged by a reviewer who uses interrogation as a means of asking questions. Your response to my post was to revert it without comment, other than "delete", an action which suggests you don't care too much about the brand as, otherwise, you would have defended yourself and explained your reasons for addressing the author as you did—so that, as I am "not very good at GAR", I might learn something.
I entirely accept that I am bound to make mistakes as I gain experience of the site. When I do make a mistake, however, I will hold up my hand and acknowledge it. I will then do what I can to fix it, and finally I will endeavour to learn from it. You may notice that I have a list of "learning points" on my userpage, some of which are there because of mistakes.
You say my reaction to your comments in the Nicias review shows that I am "not a very good judge of GAC and not very good at GAR". Well, maybe not.
I didn't expect Nicias to get a GA pass because I had spent time "rescuing" the article, which was poor quality when I found it, and I thought a review would help me to see if I was taking things in the right direction, WP-wise. What I wanted was feedback, not a medal. I was at first very pleased that someone should offer to review the article so soon as I had decided to "park it" for several weeks. Let's consider how that review went, shall we?
First, you posted half a dozen "general comments" which concerned only isolated parts of the article. My expectation was that a full review would be completed before anything was posted, and you would summarise any general points after listing any itemised ones, and considering the criteria. Even so, I decided to go along with it.
The second of your general points said Bury p.266 does not mention Laurion nor Nicias so I would call FN1 a failed spot check and you placed a "failed verification" tag in the article. I would have expected a competent reviewer to make sure they were referencing the same source as the one used by the author. My source was listed in the bibliography as a book published in 1975, and the sfn citation linked to it. Why assume that an online version of the first edition in 1900 is the same as a later edition published in 1975? Later, after I clarified this for you, you said "I am using the 1st edition". The 1975 edition is a substantial update of Bury's work by Professor Russell Meiggs, himself a distinguished historian, and this was the fourth edition. It should be obvious that there may be significant differences between first and fourth editions published 75 years apart, so what you see online may bear little relationship to the source used in the article.
In your third point, you begin your insistence that the brief 1911 EB summary is the "authoritative source". Given that the main sources are detailed histories written by Thucydides and J. B. Bury (plus, now, Nicholas Hammond), I considered your assertion to be quite without credibility. You immediately followed that misguided assessment with even if some Brit from the 19th century decided to call the party conservative. I suppose I must be some Brit from the 20th century, then, except that my historical skills are insignificant compared with those of Professor Bury.
Of course, as you say, my "reaction" to seeing such complete rubbish as those comments can only mean I am "not a very good judge of GAC and not very good at GAR".
That was by no means the end of it because your fifth comment revealed that you had missed the point through failing to recognise the context within which Bury made his analysis of Nicias' failings. You compounded your error by announcing that "the writing is not very encyclopedic", the sort of throwaway insult made by people who are themselves unable to write well.
Despite serious misgivings, I responded politely to your six points and even agreed with two of them. I put you right about the Bury edition and about the use of "conservative" in its adjectival sense, not the Tory sense. I tried to explain to you that Athenian "parties" were ad hoc, and did not have the formal commitments of parties formed since the days of Whigs and Tories. Most important, I answered your "some Brit" and "not very encyclopedic" nonsense with You seem to doubt Bury's reputation as an eminent classical historian. He was not just "some Brit from the 19th century", and his analysis cannot be dismissed as "so questionable" or as a "POV claim". You say the passage is "not very encyclopaedic", but it summarises Bury's analytical findings having studied Nicias' "qualities of a leader and a statesman". That the passage provides analysis is encyclopaedic, whereas a flat statement that Nicias was devout and popular among his own supporters would be anything but. It was already obvious to me that the helpful and meaningful feedback I need was not going to be found in this review.
In a later post, you make the claim that "I especially go out of my way to do GAR for newer GA nominators". Really? Is that because you expect the inexperienced nominators to willingly accept your contentions? For example, in the very same post you say: the way you wrote the sentence according to WP:MOS indicates that it is a POV claim. The first paragraph here captures how to prevent POV claim WP:OPINION. Specifically if you say "Bury says Nicias is a bad leader". Then you are making a POV claim. POV claims have a higher burden for notability because articles should strive to present WP:NPOV.
Leaving aside the poor English, you evidently don't understand WP:NPOV or WP:OPINION. The sentence in question was: J. B. Bury wrote that Nicias lacked the ability to lead a political party, since he "had not the qualities of a leader or a statesman" followed by a citation (Bury, p. 267).
The fundamental aspects of WP:NPOV are that writers must not state opinions as facts and vice-versa. In this case, I categorically stated Bury's opinion as Bury's opinion by saying what he wrote and providing verification. Even if I had written something so trite as "Bury says Nicias is a bad leader", that is still stating Bury's opinion as Bury's opinion. If I had written "Nicias lacked the ability to lead a political party, because he didn't have the qualities of a leader or a statesman", that would be a breach of NPOV because I would be stating an opinion as a fact. I qualified the actual version by saying Bury wrote it, and so I was stating Bury's opinion as an opinion.
WP:OPINION is an essay, and therefore advisory, whereas NPOV is a core site policy. WP:OPINION is, nevertheless, a very good essay, and it begins by saying the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue. Specialists such as Thucydides, Bury, and Hammond. The essayist then raises the salient point that Hard facts are really rare. And that is true, especially the older a topic may be. So, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs.
Everything you have said about "POV claims" contradicts NPOV and OPINION. I might add that the expression "POV claim" does not exist in NPOV or OPINION, so perhaps you would like to explain what on Earth it means (and also "POV syntax")? Fortunately, I studied NPOV when I first became a member, and I later found OPINION when browsing through some essays, so I already knew what they say before I read your comments. What is worrying is that some new editors might take you at your word and be completely misled, so that they proceed to write opinions as facts in breach of NPOV. You might help yourself if you wrote better English than how to prevent POV claim WP:OPINION, which is by no means an isolated example.
When I began my replies to you on 3 March, my first was to advise you that the EB piece is a brief summary, whereas Bury's work is a detailed history. Also, like WP, EB accrues its content from works like Bury. I find it hard to believe that someone who claims to guide new nominators should be insisting that a piece consisting of twelve lines (laptop width) must take precedence over a scholastic standard written by a Cambridge professor. Another of my replies concerned your "POV claim" stuff. I said: it was not a POV claim because it wasn't written as a fact. It was Bury's view based on his expert analysis and it contained a quote. POV would be stating an opinion as fact in Wikipedia's voice without mentioning Bury.
Then we come to this comment in which you accuse Bury (and Meiggs) of something called "Monday night quarterbacking". Forgive my ignorance as "some Brit" but, no, I had absolutely no idea what this ludicrous expression meant or what it had to do with Ancient Greek history, and neither did my American mate who supports the NY Jets. Another editor kindly informed me that it basically means judging with the benefit of hindsight, but it's a mildly cretinous turn of phrase. And what do historians do? They analyse past events with the benefit of hindsight, and, as WP:OPINION says, our articles should represent the POVs (opinions) of the main scholars, etc., etc.
Having endured this nonsense thus far, I decided that my best course of action was to request a change of reviewer. That isn't feasible, fair enough, so I requested termination. I intended to renominate moreorless immediately, and wait for another reviewer but, thanks to an interested friend, the Nicholas Hammond book has come into my hands, so I'm studying that for the present.
Once the Nicias review had been closed, I would not have expected to find you following me to two reviews which I'm doing to help the GA process (I realise there is no quid pro quo need, btw). If your additional comments at those reviews had been useful, and if you had been polite, they would have been welcome. Indeed, a few of your points were taken on board, so you weren't completely rebuffed.
I've already mentioned your comments in the Vietze review, but those in the Nannau Hall review are little better. One example, again invoking the POV stuff, is your objection to The urn was later dated by Professor Christopher Hawkes as about 2,700 years old and sent to the British Museum the following year, plus citation. You said this is a questionable use of POV syntax. Should probably be said with WP voice. I gave you the benefit of the doubt to some extent by replying: Absolutely fine as is. British English. In fact, your "POV syntax" comment is errant nonsense. The sentence is fact, written as fact, and well written too. Professor Hawkes was a distinguished archaeologist (in case you think he was "some Brit"), and dating material objects was part of his expertise. I fail to see how else the author of the article could impart the information.
This is quite a lengthy response but you have taken my original concern around WP:FOLLOWING into competence territory. I am learning about the site by being WP:BOLD in the way I gain experience. I hoped to get a meaningful review of my work on Nicias, concerning aspects of the GA criteria such as prose, understanding, structure, referencing, NPOV, scope, etc. Instead, I am presented with ludicrous comments like "some Brit from the 19th century", "POV claim", and "Monday night quarterbacking". A reviewer who takes on an article about Ancient Greece, and declares that scholastically-recognised historians like Thucydides and Professor Bury are unreliable, simply cannot be taken seriously.
Don't worry. I'm not about to take this to the WP:ANI forum, but you need to improve your act if you seriously think you are providing guidance to new nominators. You say above that my reaction to your comments makes you think I am not very good at GAR. It apparently doesn't occur to you that my "reaction" might have been due to my perception that you are not very good at it?
You don't have to reply to this if you prefer not to, and I think it will be best if we agree to disagree. For the future, if you think something is a "POV claim" or whatever, I would suggest you ask a third party to look at it before wading in with your "well, did he?" demands.
Hopefully, we've both learned a few things, so we can move forward and keep trying to improve articles. With that in mind, would you fancy helping out at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors and/or Category:CS1 errors? No problem, if not, but there are only a handful of editors working on citation errors.
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.
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]
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)
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.
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]
Quotation marks
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 Farmtalk16:49, 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.
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.
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.
The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.
Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:
History6042 (submissions) with 1,088 round points from four featured lists about Michelin-starred restaurants, nine good articles and a good topic mostly on Olympic-related subjects, seven ITN articles, and dozens of reviews
Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,085 round points from three FAs, one GA, and four DYKs on military history, as well as 18 reviews
Arconning (submissions) with 887 round points, mostly from four FLs, six GAs, and seven DYKs on Olympic topics, along with more than two dozen reviews
In addition, we would like to recognize Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.
The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.
Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. 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) 01:02, 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:
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.
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.
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]
Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize and $250 worth of prizes for architectural articles. If you are interested in winning something to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for articles which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld16:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Reviewal
Hello! It's a pleasure to meet you.
I came here to kindly ask if you could review some of the Wikipedia articles I’ve created on English Wikipedia, such as Aalong, Iwanthaba, Loitongba, and a few others, if you don't mind.
If you could do this for me, I would truly appreciate your kindness and never forget it.
Thank you! :) Victor Ningthemcha(talk)03:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi! Thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation June Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 2000 drafts already. We have around 2100 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in 5 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to make this happen. A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! – DreamRimmer■01:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award
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]
WikiCup 2025 July newsletter
The third round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 June. This round was again competitive, with three contestants scoring more than 1,000 round points:
Sammi Brie (submissions) with 1,055 round points, mostly from television station articles, including 27 good articles and 9 good topic articles
Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 4 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 1 featured picture, 9 featured-topic articles, 149 good articles, 27 good-topic articles, and more than 90 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 18 In the News articles, and they have conducted more than 200 reviews.
Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. 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) 14:49, 29 June 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.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Adel Al-Najadah, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
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. LizRead!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]
A redirect could work. With these "exploration areas" what I often see is that they are somewhat arbitrarily drawn up and not done so for historical or other notable reasons. Czarking0 (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Voting on discussions
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:
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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]
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?
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]
The fourth round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 29 August. The penultimate round saw three contestants score more than 800 points:
BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,175 round points, mainly from sports-related articles, including 17 good articles, 27 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles
AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 854 round points, mostly from a high-scoring featured article on the Indian leader Rani of Jhansi and two good articles, in addition to 13 featured and good article reviews
Everyone who competed in Round 4 will advance to Round 5 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for Round 4 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 9 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 98 good articles, 9 good topic articles, more than 150 reviews, nearly 100 did you know articles, and 18 in the news articles.
In advance of the fifth and final round, the judges would like to thank every contestant for their hard work. As a reminder, any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed in Round 5. In addition, note that Round 5 will end on 31 October at 23:59 UTC. Awards at the end of Round 5 will be distributed based on who has the most tournament points over all five rounds, and special awards will be distributed based on high performance in particular areas of content creation (e.g., most featured articles in a single round).
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 – Cwmhiraeth (talk·contribs), Epicgenius (talk·contribs), Frostly (talk·contribs), Guerillero (talk·contribs) and Lee Vilenski (talk·contribs) – are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck!
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.
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]
What editors influenced your vote ? - The nominator's arguments chimed with me. However well-sourced or 'interesting' a piece of research is, it does not necessarily mean it is a real-world notable topic
Were there any editors you particularly disagreed with? - Not really, though Selbsportrait seemed to think they should have multiple 'bites at the cherry'
Did you ever change your vote? If yes please state each vote and what changed your mind - N/A
Did you read all of the discussion before you voted? - Yes, fortunately there wasn't so much, at the time I 'voted'
After you voted did you go back to the page? - Yes
After you voted did you read all of the additional discussion? - No (TLDR)
Did you read the closing comments? - Yes
Did you agree with the closing comments? - it was a well explained rationale, at least, and the status quo didn't completely remain (as it often disappointingly does with 'no consensus' discussions)
Given the way the discussion was closed would you change your vote? - No
Given the way the discussion was closed would you have liked to make an additional comments? - No, there's so much rubbish on Wikipedia, I try and make my opinion then move on
Do you feel like others read your comments? - Certainly I had a response
How do you think the AfD process could be improved? - there surely has to be a way to prevent editors from dominating a discussion, having repeated 'bites at the cherry', going off on tangents, wikilawyering and generaly discouraging other editors from taking part
Do you think the AfD process worked well in this case? Please only answer Yes or No. - No
How many times did you comment on the AfD? (filled in automatically) - 2
What is the diff of your first comment on the AfD? (filled in automatically) - [2]
How did you vote? Keep
What editors influenced your vote ? IIRC my vote wasn't really influenced by other comments. I was surprised to see this article in an AfD and a relatively strong opinion that it should be kept given the abundance of sources. The main objection seemed to be about the word "network" in the title, rather than about the notability of the topic itself, and that objection was dismissed in the closing comment.
Were there any editors you particularly disagreed with? - Didn't pay that much attention to contributor names, more about recurring arguments. I guess I particularly disagreed with Iljhgtn, who said the article is a POV fork, which was weird because it was just a split.
Did you ever change your vote? If yes please state each vote and what changed your mind - No, not in this AfD
Did you read all of the discussion before you voted? - No, not all
After you voted did you go back to the page? - Yes
After you voted did you read all of the additional discussion? Part of it after coming back to the AfD a week later, not just right after voting
Did you read the closing comments? - Yes
Did you agree with the closing comments? - The closing comment was openly discounting a significant part of the votes, with some arguments for justification. Assuming it's nonpartisan and well-grounded in Wikipedia's policies (which I assume AfD closing contributors usually are), it can be reasonable, but it was a little surprising and I don't really know what to think about it and if it's good practice.
Given the way the discussion was closed would you change your vote? - No
Given the way the discussion was closed would you have liked to make an additional comments? - No
Do you feel like others read your comments? - Yes
How do you think the AfD process could be improved? It seems to me that the process is already good. It's a little off-topic, but there is an asymmetry in the article creation process: it's more difficult (and longer) to get a draft accepted than it is to just create an article directly in the mainspace and have the article kept if there is an AfD. Although the problem is more likely with how stringent draft reviews are than with AfD. And with AfD if the article is deleted you usually get clear explanations, whereas with rejected draft reviews the feedback is often minimal and you can't argue or ask where the problem is.
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.
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.
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.
AI chatbots reinforcing delusions the due weight of this was already rejected on talk page
