Hello and thanks for checking out my user page. If you came to look at my user page proceed to the next section. Alternatively if you came for the AfD survey you are in the right place.

I would like to make AfD more organized but I do not want to just shove my ideas down people's throat so I am trying to conduct this survey to see what people think.

For now, the survey is focused on the participants of these two discussions

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network of the Department of Government Efficiency
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caesar DePaço

If you think there is another discussion I should target please leave a message on my talk page.

Here are the questions. If you would like to respond please copy and paste this section tohere with your answers. Answer whatever you feel comfortable with.

1. What is your username?
2. Do you think the AfD process worked well in this case? Please only answerYes orNo.
3. How many times did you comment on the AfD? (filled in automatically)
4. What is the diff of your first comment on the AfD? (filled in automatically)
5. How did you vote?
6. What editors influenced your vote ?
7. Were there any editors you particularly disagreed with?
8. Did you ever change your vote? If yes please state each vote and what changed your mind
9. Did you read all of the discussion before you voted?
10. After you voted did you go back to the page?
11. After you voted did you read all of the additional discussion?
12. Did you read the closing comments?
13. Did you agree with the closing comments?
14. Given the way the discussion was closed would you change your vote?
15. Given the way the discussion was closed would you have liked to make an additional comments?
16. Do you feel like others read your comments?
17. How do you think the AfD process could be improved?

I supportWP:RECALL for anyone who has not brought an article pastWP:GAR in the last two years

 #

20 October 2025
News and notes:Board shuffles, LLM blocks increase, IPs are going away And the "Global Resource Distribution Committee" emerges. Special report:The election that isn't Two shortlisted WMF Board candidates removed from the ballot. Interview:The BoT bump Who was bumped and why? In the media:An incident at WikiConference North America; WMF reports AI-related traffic drop and explains Wikipedia to US conservatives ...while Musk prepares to launch "Grokipedia". Traffic report:One click after another Serial-killer miniseries, deceased scientist, government shutdowns and Sandalwood hit "Kantara" crowd the tubes. Humour:Wikipedia pay rates Don't get too excited before you read this.
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

cool tool:https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q84263196

Click this button
to review
an AfC submission

Thanks for your interest in (draft name). I will move your comment to the draft's talk page as that is the appropriate place for this discussion and respond to you there.

• Clearview AI
• Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk
• Fukushima nuclear accident

Realistically I will never get to these

• https://academic.oup.com/book/11293/chapter-abstract/159862167?redirectedFrom=fulltext
• Group of Seven Plus (g7+)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DataflowBot/output/Popular_low_quality_articles_(id-2)
• Abdelaziz bin Khalifa Al Thani
• Chip 1 Exchange
• Valery Solodchuk
• Salil Parekh
• Saravana Stores

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Department_of_Government_Efficiency&diff=1293940590&oldid=1293940373

• Jean Destremau

• Project Azorian
• 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron is pretty good but it needs sources to be cleaned up

• Lawrence Korb of the Brooking Institute wrote about aerospace duopolies
• https://www-tandfonline-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1628471
• In the 1980's he worked as a lobbyist for Raytheon but was fired for not towing the line. One the call R. Gene Shelley. He was contacted by Melvyn R. Paisley and Everett Pyatt from the Navy and Carl Smith, who served on the Republican staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

  You're in a lot of trouble. [Raytheon President D. Brainerd] Holmes says if you criticized Lehman's 600-ship Navy you should be fired." Assistant Secretary Pyatt had warned the chief of Raytheon's missile division that he would "stop assisting Raytheon with certain defense contracts" so long as Korb continued to criticize the defense budget. John Lehman coordinated some of the communication.https://go-gale-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T003&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&retrievalId=a7db5002-59f2-40b7-95e2-314558bebf1a&hitCount=1&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CA6809846&docType=Article&sort=RELEVANCE&contentSegment=ZGPP-MOD1&prodId=ITOF&pageNum=1&contentSet=GALE%7CA6809846&searchId=R1&userGroupName=wikipedia&inPS=true

• https://access-newspaperarchive-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/us/new-hampshire/nashua/nashua-telegraph/1997/07-04/page-17/ "From 1989-1992 the annual value of defense mergers never exceeded $3 billion." In 1996 it was $24 billion.
• Defense Secretary William Perry
• LM CEO Norman Augustine
• 1998 defense bill
• https://www.state.gov/new-start/ did the US and Russia stop doing NEW Start inspections? -- yes. Should be a big story when it eventually resumes
• "Fallows asks why military spending keeps going up as the capability delivered goes down. I think a big part of the answer is that the Pentagon is still trying to run its affairs like a centrally planned economy, while our adversaries are increasingly being run as a free market." Interesting claim. Is it even true that adversaries are run as free market? "The only long-term answer I can see is to shift toward more of a free-market approach that gives commanders in specific geographic regions, or perhaps even units preparing to face specific threats, more flexibility to go out and procure systems and capabilities that meet their own needs. Doing so would require breaking the centrally planned budget and delegating more budget authority to lower levels." To what extent to officers feel like they have this control now?^[1]

• Fallows 1980s book National Defense. The Spoils of War was good too

• How didTotal Package Procurement impact the industry?
• Is there a legitimate risk in mixing the government contract industry with the private market? Like the L-1011 example? Is there a benefit in separating them?
• why did rolls royce go bankrupt?
• While the services calculate their own estimates for program costs before soliciting bids, they are required to replace these numbers with the winning contractor's estimate when formulating the fmal contract. According to Sambur, the result is that "the winning number is often too low . . . when, infact, the original DoD estimates are generally within 3 percent of the final cost."
• GAO Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management Michael Sullivan noted in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee this year that GAO's annual studies of MDAPs "have consistently found that the vast majority of programs began system development without mature technologies and moved into system demonstration without design stability.
• Definition and Context:

       Add the source's point that the definition of "rightists" was not always consistent.

       Explain the source's argument that figures like Zhang Bojun and Luo Longji, historically centre-left, were labeled "right-wing" after 1949 due to the changed political landscape, citing the source ([18]/[4]).

   Accusations and Fabrications: This is a major area.

       In the "First wave" section, where it mentions claims like "take turns to rule," incorporate the source's argument that these accusations were fabricated or distorted.

       Detail the source's specific examples:

           The distortion of Ge Peiqi's remark about "killing communists," citing the source.

           The CCP's later admission (according to the source) that the material used to label Zhang Bojun a rightist, including the "taking turns" idea, was "inaccurate" or extended from others, citing the source.

       Explain the actual proposals made by Zhang Bojun (e.g., Political Design Institutes, explicitly stating it wasn't parliamentary politics) and Luo Longji (e.g., rehabilitation commission including non-Party members, CPPCC/NPC/parties as advisory "Political Design Institutes"), citing the source as presenting these as the actual, less radical ideas misrepresented by the campaign.

       Explain the concept of "equal footing" (fen ting kang li) as discussed by Zhang and Luo and interpreted by the source as something far short of wanting to "take turns" or "replace the Party."

   Nature of Democratic Parties:

       Expand on the status of democratic parties before and during the campaign. Use the source to explain the view that they had become "political flower-vases" or puppets lacking real power, citing the source.

       Include Chu Anping's specific criticism (mentioned in the source) about non-Party members losing significant government posts after 1949, citing the source.

   Rule of Law and Legal System:

       While the article states the legal system was targeted, add more detail about why, based on the source. Describe the specific calls for strengthening the rule of law and enacting specific legislation (criminal, civil, etc.) made by figures like Wang Zaoshi, Huang Shaohong, and Huang Shouli, citing the source.

       Include the source's analysis that this advocacy clashed with Mao's view of law as a tool for class struggle rather than a constraint on state power, citing the source.

   Mao's Motives:

       Incorporate the source's critical analysis of Mao's motives – that he launched the campaign to prevent checks and balances, ensure "absolute dictatorship," feared waning power within the Party after the 20th Congress/criticism of personality cults, and used the "rightists" as a target to intimidate potential opponents within the Party ("killing the chicken to show the monkey"), citing the source's interpretation.

       Mention Chen Mingshu's specific criticism of Mao's personality (hot-headed, impatient, partial) and Mao's furious reaction, citing the source.

   Punishments/Experiences:

       The source mentions Zhang and Luo being stripped of posts and relegated, which could be added.

   Legacy:

       Expand or create a new section in "Legacy" to include the source's analysis of the intellectual and political legacy of the "rightists." Discuss the source's argument that the seeds of contemporary Chinese democracy and rights defense movements can be traced back to the ideas and resistance of the 1957 "active rightists," citing the source. Mention the source's point about the suppression of law, politics, and sociology undermining potential democratic forces.

Contradictory Information / Missing Important Details:

   Contradiction: The most significant area of difference is the source's direct challenge to the truthfulness of the accusations made against the "rightists," which the Wikipedia article currently presents without this specific counter-narrative from the source. The article mentions the accusation "take turns to rule," while the source calls this a "fabrication" or "inaccurate material" and provides evidence (CCP's later admission, Zhang's actual proposals). This isn't a factual contradiction (the accusation was made), but a contradiction in the validity of the accusation. The article should include the source's argument that these accusations were false, clearly attributing this view to the source.

   Missing Important Details: As outlined in the "Where it Should Be Used Additionally" section, the most important missing details from the Wikipedia article (relative to this source) are:

       The source's detailed arguments challenging the official accusations as fabrications or distortions.

       The specific content of the "rightists'" proposals for reform, rule of law, and the role of democratic parties, as presented in the source.

       The source's in-depth analysis of Mao's motivations for the campaign.

       The source's analysis connecting the 1957 movement to contemporary calls for democracy and rights defense in China.

       The source's view on the status of democratic parties as lacking real power ("flower-vases").

[1][2][3][4]

Most of the pages in Category: American billionaires are puff pieces. I started trying to remedy this only to realize the problem is that mainstream media published these puff pieces and WP follows the sources.Typical example I wonder if the RS guidelines could ever be modified to account for this?

• It is difficult for the american people, who have been tricked by the billionaire media to understand the importance of having guns in their own hands.

I just read the Jimbo AFC LLM idea thread and one of the common issues I see from editors discussing LLM use is how limited they think it is. As an example of what I mean "Generative LLMs are not accurate or intelligent enough at this point to be a useful tool on Wikipedia." Accuracy and intelligence are not what make useful wikipedia tools AWB is highly inaccurate if one does not reject many changes and Twinkle has no intelligence at all. I believe this sentiment comes from users who have only used LLMs as web interfaces to a chatbot like ChatGPT. An LLM is much more powerful when controlled by an application and given much more context control via a database. For example I have PROD'd like 10 of User:Bine Mai 's low importance stubs. They created thousands and I would like to remove the other non notable ones but I am not willing to read hundreds of these low quality stubs and google them because like half of them are notable. It is very much in the bounds of an application controlling an LLM to go through all of these and rank them from least to most notable. It would be especially helpful because many of these are in eastern europe and use sources I cannot read without an LLM to translate them for me anyway.

• AI bill of rights which acknowledges the need to informed authorship. Police reports, government documents, and other records generated in part or whole by artificial intelligence shall not be used as evidence in the court of law without preliminary disclosure of the fact that the records were generated in whole or part by artificial intelligence and all available information regards the inputs and models used to generate such records shall be included with the disclosure.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1.Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, andunderstandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with theManual of Style guidelines forlead sections,layout,words to watch,fiction, andlist incorporation.
2.Verifiable withno original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance withthe layout style guideline.
	2b.reliable sources arecited inline. All content thatcould reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it containsno original research.
	2d. it contains nocopyright violations orplagiarism.
3.Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses themain aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (seesummary style).
	4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoingedit war or content dispute.
6.Illustrated, if possible, bymedia such asimages,video, oraudio:
	6a. media aretagged with theircopyright statuses, andvalid non-free use rationales are provided fornon-free content.
	6b. media arerelevant to the topic, and havesuitable captions.
	7.Overall assessment.

This user is astatistician.

• Wikipedian statisticians