User:Czarking0

Military Articles Close to Up Ranking

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

Future

• 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.
• 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 did Total 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.

Message to blocked users

You seem like a salvageable editor so I want to explain a few things and I hope you will continue to take interest in the project in the future. First, there are a lot of guidelines for editing this encyclopedia. They come from our consensus building process. Good editors take time to read the guidelines and follow the consensus rather than their own opinion. WP:TEAHOUSE has great starting resources. Coming to the project with the goal of currying favor is a hard place to start being a good editor from but if you restart from here I am confident the community will be pleased to have you back. In this particular instance you were blocked by an administrator after you failed to follow consensus. I understand that your interpretation of the guidelines leads to you believe you were not in the wrong. Maybe the guidelines should be edited to more directly cover your situation. However, what is in the guideline does not matter when the appropriate WP:VENUE has formed WP:CONSENSUS we can ignore the guidelines. Now I encourage you to read all these policies and the others mentioned and appeal your block. Then I hope you can find joy in editing pages that you do not expect to personally gain from.

New COI

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your contributions. Since your first and only edits are about a new company I wanted to ensure you were aware of the conflict of interest guidelines.Czarking0 (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Sources for mines in Ukraine

Billionaires

财源滚滚裁员滚滚 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?

Turns of phrase

• 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.
• Congress is not a legislative body, but a group of people performing the role of a legislative body. This is the society of the spectacle. Your company does not care if you are their employee or if you are someone performing the role of their employee. In other words, they do not care what is in your heart. What about our congress people, do we care what is in their heart? Is it better, at heart, to be someone who plays the role of the employee, or to be the employee? Do we want congress people who represent us, or do we want congress people who play the role of someone who represents us? Do we care? What does this say about me? Am I someone who says these words or am I playing the role of someone who says these words? This is not genealogical point but at anthropological one.
• you’ve got to be careful that you don’t make engineers beholden to product-marketing people. For me, growth is the goal, and growth comes through having innovation. Innovation comes through having great engineers, not great product-marketing guys. Coach Campbell

Holy mother of LLM use

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.

rep

• 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.

jimbo question

Why not Brian Behlendorf?

participation model

toolforge useful for measuring participation: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pageinfo/en.wikipedia.org/OpenAI

one example of controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2026-08-24/Opinion additional related to above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#22:11_Opinion more content focused controversy is my GA review of Kash Patel

Rather than viewing articles as something I either join or do not join I think of participation as on a spectrum. None > Read > Watch > Review > Adjust > Prioritize > Champion

What gets me to these levels? Topic I want to learn more about > interested in changes to the page > I think this is an important topic that others have already dedicated a lot to > I see problems in the article and they are something I can fix and have an interest in fixing > this is an important topic that I think I am fit to massively improve > I am willing to spend the time to become an expert on this subject

Also of note are the backlog drives

Who decides

The policies and guidelines end up dictating the content >90% of the time. Sometimes people gain undue influence by sending so much time and writing long replies on articles that others do not have time to read it but that is really the minority. Mostly the decisions are made based on the strengths of the arguments (not the number of people that agree).

Kos topics

Yes math wikipedia is not great. I am not sure what more to think about that.

I suspect that pre-revolutionary Russian literature was so good because of a robust publishing industry in which sought to fill long dark winters with heavy though provoking books. A large and wealthy nobility produced great authors and an audience to read them. People like Amor Towels begin to revive that for me, but I read him in a cheapened and more shallow way. Can American publishes today print great books? Will they bet on people buying them? A great book today still has to compete for Barns and Noble shelf space with Ana Karenina. Were Tolstoy's books even sold in stores? His publishes cared about profit but also the market was very different. Dungeon Crawler Carl seems like an entertaining read but I doubt it will withstand 100 years. Tom Lake was beautiful, is Ann Patchett a modern Tolstoy? I doubt it, but I take the question seriously. Maybe in 100 years people will be ready to understand Thomas Pynchon without a study guide, but I fear his references will become too Schwartz to understand. Taking a look at my Goodreads One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Slaughterhouse-5, The Jungle, The Lincoln Highway, and Lonesome Dove are the only piece of American fiction with a five star rating from myself. I stand by these and I think all of them will still be enjoyable by my great grandchildren. The Lincoln Highway is notably contemporary. Given that these are five books all published within 100 years of each other, people may think this is a corp of great American literature. I have deep respect for Russian literature but there is also quite some time between War and Peace and Doctor Zhivago.

The history of The House of Lords provides an interesting reflect on how the money should be represented in politics. I suspect that as the peerage lost direct political power the money got better at influencing the House of Commons. What exactly is the problem with the balance of power? That the people with money have the power and those without the money do not have the power? Well, if that is the issue then I suspect that the people with power have money and the ones without power are struggling to get some money. If having the power did not get you more money then money wouldn't be much good.

Present political issues may well stem from people not knowing how to exploit the political system.

For some people the only real scientific education is to make a thing. I think the best way to teach science is depends on the goals of your education system. If the goal is to make students which have the aptitude into great scientists then I think the best way to educate them would be to give them a bunch of materials to make things out of. Rather, if the science you want to teach is zoology then they should get some animals and take care of them. However, I fear the most education is about provided cheap daycare. Giving students a bunch of copper so they can figure out how electricity works is not cheap.

Twitter is absolutely the equivalent of 1800's political pamphlets.

I believe society solves problems exactly the same way as any living organism. It randomly tries things and then has feedback mechanisms to guide the response. I would need a lot of evidence to believe otherwise. If I am right, then this process is continuously getting better. Though we may not like what better means. It is getting better in the way organisms get better taking the environment and converting into more of society with the same feedback mechanisms. The franchise is the perfect example of this. Governments that understand and can wield the power of the franchise will lead the way in discovering new feedback mechanisms and rapidly spreading them. The problem with centralized systems is that once their feedback systems are robust the system ossifies. It is in a local minimum from which all of its feedback systems detect new ideas as suboptimal. Under the franchise model, society can cheaply start a new system and if it solves a problem, then it can rapidly grow in parallel rather than top-down. Each franchisee is free to try new things but others will not adopt unless it is successful.

Digital computers typically do not have any characteristic behavior in the absence of stimulus. They can truly wait. The biological computer cannot wait it must compute. It can be taught new programs to run but it cannot be taught to stop running a program. The DNA contains many instructions which will never directly be used, but it is the very fact that these will not be used which makes the ones that are used perform correctly enough. It does not need to calculate 2+2=4 it simply has some old gene that is never used which says 1+1 > 1 , 2+2> 2.5 and others which are also never used which say 2+2 < 6 and 2+2 < 4.5 only by having these genes and having had parents, millions of years ago which did actually use these genes, is the biological computer able to have the gene 2+2>3.99999 and 2+2<4.11111 which is almost always good enough for now. In a few million years maybe its grandchildren will have 2+2>3.999999 and 2+2<4.111111. It is the impatience and unwillingness to make a mistake which makes the digital computer the way it is. You truly cannot have it cheap, fast, and good.

The US government may have encouraged suburban sprawl, but this does not matter. Even if the government had actively discouraged it the result would have been the same. Americans love their big houses and their big yards. I reckon that if everyone else could afford it they would love it to. People do not move to the suburbs because they are poor.

I really do wonder if better gender transitions would lower the stigma against trans people. American used to have laws against people with physical deformities using public restrooms. Of course there is Jim Crow on top of that which I don't really see as much different. Fundamentally people are huge dicks. Maybe better gender transitions would lower the stigma against trans people but I am sure some other group of people would be excluded from our public restrooms. Everyone needs someone to blame when they have the runs and all the stalls are taken.

Many police departments are implementing Skydio drones for better real time response. I am not a fan. "I am from the government and I am here to help" is probably as scary in the 21st century as it was in the 20th.

I feel like everyone is pretty against using nuclear weapons in a mostly heard mentality and almost any change to the status quo will raise the likelihood of them being used. That is one of the many reasons I am opposed to resurgence in nuclear weapons develop since about 2020 and the end of the New Start inspections (mentioned above).

I think that without sports and entertainment there would be a constant stream of violence. I am not sure that it would amount to war because I think it takes money to wage war, but I think giving free TV's, netflix, and playstations to people in the ghetto would be great for stopping violence. A lot of people have died for religion. I do think religion has an important but different characteristic. The 55th street crypts are willing to ruin many people's lives over a hoover blood walking down to their block. This is an intense othering of their neighbors. If they all saw themselves first as Christians they may well still harbor violence but they would direct it towards ones living much further away which they call Jews or Muslims. However, this may not be complete. Once a man feels not only hateful but violent he may be biologically compelled to direct his violence towards a realistic target. For a broke man with no car the realistic target is more likely to live a few streets over than in Iraq. After the violence, he must tell a story about why it went down. This story may well be that the victim was a blood. However, if he had been accepted into rather navy the week before rather than rejected on account that he was overweight and had poor vision we would hear about how the victim was a terrorist.