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 , on the 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]

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]

Sounds good you too! Czarking0 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Named professors at Ivy League Universities pass WP:PROF automatically. Bearian (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what you are referring to? I think you mean WP:NACADEMIC point 5 but this is not a chair position? Czarking0 (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is another one that I think is notable. See you online next year. Bearian (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new sources. I agree with you here. Czarking0 (talk) 19:18, 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.

From the draft: Gary Comstock is Alumni Association Distinguished Undergraduate Professor of Philosophy at North Carolina State University.

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?

Thanks Roy Louis (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Thanks so much for agreeing to take a look! I've just published the update to the lead. Please review it and see what you think. Roy Louis (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Roy I am still seeing that my edit is the most recent edit. This is where I am looking Czarking0 (talk) 20:38, 4 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]

I resubmitted. Please ping me if you need anything further from me. Thank you. Roy Louis (talk) 18:29, 12 February 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

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

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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 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]

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.

Can you please explain why you decided to intervene at each of Talk:Heinz Vietze/GA1 and Talk:Nannau Hall/GA1?

Your post at Vietze was eight hours after I had completed the initial review; at Nannau Hall, it was a mere 77 minutes afterwards.

I await your reply. Spartathenian (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Spartathenian (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright glad you got to say your piece. Do you consider this resolved from a dispute resolution stand point? Czarking0 (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. It's a deal, as Trump would say.

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.

Good luck. Spartathenian (talk) 11:32, 10 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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