User talk:Khazar2/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

GA review

Although u made an edit to the article Thuppakki which is awaiting a GA review (I am the nominator), do u still think u can review it? If yes, pls do so. the article's remained a nominee for nearly a month. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you've probably noticed on the nominations page, it's not uncommon for articles to wait 2 to 4 months for review, though some are reviewed sooner. I may review this at some point in the future, but no promises. Thanks for your work on this one either way! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for a very thorough GA review of Sea and additionally for the barnstar. It was fun working up the article (in collaboration) from its limited previous size. Much more interesting than trying to find references for unattributed statements! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It really is so much easier to work from scratch. I know it's un-Wikipedia-like in some ways, but in a few of my major article overhauls lately, I've just been moving in from-scratch drafts from my user space if no one actively objects on the talk page.

Anyway, my pleasure! I learned quite a lot working on this one, which was fun. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

POV tag Iruña-Veleia

Hi Khazar2, I've seen you removed the POV tag. I can just remove the content, or add the tag again. The issue remains the same, with ongoing development on the events and different positions in the academy. This is a kind of issue that arouses passions around it, and the citation provided of a known Spanish newspaper with vested views on all political and cultural Basque topics is a quick and feeble support, not to mention the "fabricated pieces" section heading and the wording used. RegardsIñaki LL (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If you can fix the issues you see, that would be great. I'd say be bold and go for it.

I don't have any specific knowledge of this situation; I'm just removing some old POV tags where the discussion has been abandoned. The tag is only meant to be used when editors are in the process of working out an issue. If conflict breaks out again, of course, you could re-add the tag until the discussion is resolved. Thanks for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, unfortunately this is marginally a topic I deal with, but will try to re-arrange the section when I have time. Thank you for the feedback! Iñaki LL (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Slavery by Another Name

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Looks like this one made it to GA before getting featured at DYK :P Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I've seen it happen before but this is the first time it's happened to me, I think! A rare and nice surprise. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time I've seen it.. Congratulations! Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Trust me, Mohamed, it's always a nice surprise. Now, FA (though not TFA) before DYK... I think that's only happened once. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• How did it happen at all? That's pretty astonishing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Frank's Cock was in holding for April Fools' Day, went through FAC and passed (then a group decided it was too delicate a subject matter to use for April Fools', so it ran in DYK on 1 December [World AIDS Day] instead) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, I should have figured it was a special event DYK. Still quite impressive. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'm still quite giggly about it. Mind you, I'm also impressed at how you've worked on numerous book GAs recently... very good job. And your high profile biographies... cripes, I wish I could do that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! Basically I'm trying to get double-duty out of my sources--I write an article from it, then write another article about the source itself. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Like Very nice indeed. I've only done ... two articles on non-fiction books, and the one is far behind your standard work. Alright, back to work for me (my lecturer has me translating one of Riffaterre's books. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

GA review

Hey Khazar,

Wanted to let you know that I've completed addressing the GA you reviewed for me. [1] Easy pass this time, which is nice and greatly appreciated. You've been doing such good work here, so I appreciate your time. Best of luck! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Your articles are always a pleasure to work on: well-written, interesting, and practically ready for promotion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

And thank you, especially for the pass and for the shiny barnstar, too. I like it when my articles get a smooth pass like this one. I believe strongly that it's my responsibility to make sure that the articles I submit for any review are ready. Too many editors, I think, use GAN and FAC to get feedback on their articles. There are other places for that, like simply asking another editor you respect to copy-edit an article for you. The feedback you receive in GAN and FAC are invaluable, but it bugs me when an editor puts up an article that's badly written and sourced and expect extensive assistance. As a reviewer, I go ahead and review those articles anyway, and spend too much time doing so, all because I want to help make these articles better. I'm in the Wikicup (made it to the fourth round!), and it's so much more time than the 4 points a GA review is worth. Ah well, what can you do? Rant over, thanks for letting me share. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. I've started being stricter about failing nominations that have glaring and persistent copyediting problems, or which are nominated by drive-by editors who haven't worked on the article yet, but still there's a lot of weak nominations that eat up a lot of time. It's hard to know what to do about them.

On a side note, congrats on advancing so far in the WikiCup! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I should probably be as mean as you are. ;) I've never quick-failed a nom, but I've come close. I can't bring myself to it, because many of the editors who submit articles to GAC are relatively new, and I think it's important to mentor those folks. I mean, I certainly was guilty of the same thing until I learned that making sure an article is ready makes everyone's life easy, especially mine. Yesterday, I had two GAs fly through with very little trouble. Like I say, ah well. And thanks for the congrats; I squeaked through Round 3 almost at the last minute. I don't really expect to get further, since the competition is really rough. It's fun, and I've fulfilled my goal of getting to Round 4. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiJaguar

		The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
		For being there when I'm not, especially relating to Mindy Dirt and Jordan Older. buffbills7701 02:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I'd never even heard of such of thing, but will adopt it with pride--thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

William Keating review

Thanks for another review. Keep up the hard work, it's much appreciated by everybody. —Designate (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Feedback request

I'm not sure if you have time, but I've created this large article Al Khawalid. I think it could use some improvements. I'd appreciate if you or any of your page stalkers (wink at Crisco 1492) would help with it. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd be really interested, but it may be a while before I get to it--tomorrow I'm going on a weeklong wikibreak while my stepson visits us for a week. (I may be on answering questions, etc. in the meantime, but won't be doing any substantial editing). I'll put it on my post-return to-do list, though, so I won't forget. One initial suggestion I have a glance is that it seems a little recentist; almost all of the article seems to be about post-1999, particularly the last few years. I may change my mind when I read it in more detail, though.

Thanks for working on that one! You've improved our coverage of Bahrain so much. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy your time. Will be waiting for your feedback ;) Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Dwayne Wade edit request

Please add this:

Wade married his high school girlfriend Siohvaughn Funches but filed for a divorce in 2007. He has two sons, Zaire Blessing Dwyane Wade (born February 4, 2002) and Zion Malachi Airamis Wade (born May 29, 2007). Since 2007 he has been in a relationship with actress Gabrielle Union.

Thank You. 71.191.244.33 (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You should add that to the article's talk page; someone more knowledgeable about Wade than I can make the decision. Thanks for the suggestion! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

GA mentorship

Unfortunately I didn't had time, but I will have intermittent time. Could we start now or is the recruitment period over?--Aichik (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You could definitely start now. I'm on break for a while, though, and have another recruitee I need to finish up with first. I'd suggest you ask one of the other reviewers listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/List of Recruiters; there's several there without any recruitees who should be happy to help out. Good luck, and thanks again for your interest... -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Pilot (Devious Maids)

It has been 10 days now. Can you revisit Pilot (Devious Maids).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Will do--sorry for the delay, thought I had it watchlisted. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

2012 Delhi rape case

Why are you posting the victim identification topic in Biographies of living persons noticeboard? You are posting the topic on the wrong noticeboard. As you know the victim had died. TransVannian (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, a) BLP applies to "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased)" and b) the case still involves living people such as the defendants and family. If it's in the wrong place, someone there can point that out and remove it. You don't need to take all this on yourself.

Please don't show up here again looking for a pointless fight over technical issues. You're picking enough fights and causing enough disruption for any one user already. Please remember that most of us are trying to write an encyclopedia and are not interested in arguing with you about whether a rape victim fighting her attacker is/isn't braver than a soldier fighting her enemy. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not picking any fights I thought the topic was in the wrong section. Besides the victim died in December 2012. She's not recently deceased. I think you've posted topic in wrong section. Also I'm not causing any disruption and I've already stopped that comparison long ago. I hope you understand that I'm only doing what Wikipedia policies say. Thank you. TransVannian (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Six months is still reasonably recent, compared to, say, fifty years. Relatives are still alive and could easily be affected by any misinformation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for your help at Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health — Keithbob • Talk • 18:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! I've been working to get rid of as many of those old tags as possible. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

A minor change to DRN

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I think this is now ready to promote, and have done so. Congratulations. The review follows. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 22:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a very good start, but there are a few issues. The main issue is a number of "unfinished stories", where very briefly detailing the way they were resolved would allow the reader to move on.

• Section: "Native Americans". It would be worth mentioning this issue was finally and permanently resolved with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Children born to citizens of other countries" - I believe that a child born in the United States is generally considered a United States citizen under current practice. Mentioning this would clarify.

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Power of enforcement" - this section is just unclear, and very difficult to understand. It could use a major copyedit.

• I've made some tweaks that may help. Let me know what you think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A good start, as I say. Fix those few things, and we're probably ready for GA. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam, both for the suggestions and for taking this on in the first place. I'm on semiwikibreak this week and avoiding in-depth editing, but I should be able to get to this sometime this weekend. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're doing Thirteenth as well, I'll probably get to that one sometime this week too, by the way. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that'd be terrific. User:Groupuscule is the lead editor there but I've had a hand in it as well. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And here it is: Talk:Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1 Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I've made a couple of small tweaks, and think it's now ready for GA. ✓ Pass. I do hope you intend to take this to FA; I'd suggest a peer review first for a few more eyes (I am, after all, not a lawyer), but I think this is a magnificent article, at the least very nearly ready for FA. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! This one's really been a team effort. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That's terrific news--thanks again for reviewing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

I think we've now worked through everything, and the article's ready for GA. As I say in the review, the issues were relatively small, and all of you had done excellent work before I arrived and started nitpicking. Congratulaions! Review follows. I think I'll take on Bill of Rights next, and, also, if you ever want me to review more, please ask on my talk page. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 05:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Right. I'm going to take this one on. From having done the Fourteenth Amendment yesterday, I know these sort of articles get rather complex, so I just want to claim this one before I start, lest all my work is lost. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam. I'll be off Wikibreak tomorrow and will dive into this one, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Would it be worth briefly summarising the Twelfth Amendment when it's mentioned? Something like "...more than sixty years had passed since the last amendment to the Constitution (the Twelfth, which revised the rules for electing President and Vice-President) had been successfully ratified."? Or is that getting too off-topic? Use your judgement, I suppose. I've done a little copyediting of my own.

I think it may be a little too much detail for the lead, but I don't have strong feelings about it either way. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. One possibility might just be to wikilink "the last amendement to the constitution" and leave out the parenthetical. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Tried that out. See what you think, feel free to revert. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I found it a little comical in our previous draft to point out that the Twelfth Amendment was the one that preceded the 13th. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Slavery in the United States

I'm not quite sure what the term "sectional tensions" is meant to mean. Tension between sections of the country? Best to clarify.

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This sentence is incredibly unclear: "The American Colonization Society, in contrast, called for the emigration and colonization of African American slaves, who were freed, to Africa." I think this is referring to the split in the abolitionist movement between integration and emigration, but the next sentence states that it was an alternative to abolition, so I really don't know. Make this clear, please. Also, isn't "African-American" hyphenated when used as an adjective?

Style on that hyphen varies, in my understanding (this has come up before in my professional work). I recently consulted the MOS about this and didn't find any specific reference.

As for the ACS, I don't think it's correct to call them a branch of the abolitionist movement. It included some abolitionists but also many Southerners who just wanted to ship off free blacks while maintaining slavery. Eric Foner, the source for this material, describes them as separate and opposing movements. But I'll admit I'm not deeply read on the ACS, just following my source. Is there a source you could suggest as an opposing view? -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Took another pass at clarifying this this morning. Let me know what you think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I poked at it a bit myself. I didn't want to go into too much detail, but I think that explaining a little bit about it helps. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"As the country continued to expand, the issue of slavery in its new territories became the dominant national issue." - "the" implies it was the only dominant issue; wouldn't it be better to say "a dominant national issue"? I mean, it was pretty big, and the Bleeding Kansas events it inspired were a major cause of the Civil War, but it seems...

Sorry, I just wrote a paragraph contrasting the subtle variations in meaning between "a" and "the". I'll just change it.

I hope you don't mind, but I restored the original phrasing, which seems to me a more accurate summary of our reliable source: "The issue of slavery in the territories became the defining issue in the years that followed." (emphasis Goodwin's) To be clear, do you think the sentence isn't a fair summary of Goodwin, or do you just disagree with Goodwin? As above, I'm fine with looking at other sources for opposing views. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If that's definitely what the source says, I'm fine with it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for reviewing! I appreciate the assistance and feedback. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Earlier proposed amendments

This section seems mis-placed. It comes between the history leading to the thirteenth amendment, and the actual passing. It should either come right after the lead, or right at the end of the article, in my opinion.

Good idea-- Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

And that appears to be it for me. References look food, so once the things above are fixed, I think we have a GA. I'm open to reasonable compromises if any of my suggestions are stupid.

Also, I have made some copyedits while reviewing. If you care to check I haven't changed anything inappropriately, here's the batch diff for all of them. [2]. Individual justifications are in the edit summaries for the individual edits. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Going back in now for a (hopefully final) review. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

For something that had to combine a history of slavery with politics and constitutional law, this was already extremely good before I came here. There were a few bits to work through, but they were a tiny, tiny proportion of the article, and everyone involved here deserves a lot of praise. I would hope you take this to FA, although you may want to get one or more experts to review it first - I am not a constitutional expert, nor a lawyer, nor anything more than an amateur historian, after all. ✓ Pass Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

yes but slavery was ended. Try 14th Amendment. Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI posting re death threat

If I had a penny for every vandal that posted the death of someone living to their article... [[File:|18px|link=]] —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I wouldn't characterize my reaction as "panic". Asking for action against a vandalism-only account is a pretty standard step, and in any case, there's a difference between posting a fake death report, and posting that someone will die this year on a day that they're being threatened with lynching. You can take your condescension to another forum. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow. That was not even close to my intent. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Giving me a "Don't Panic" template seemed pretty straightforward, but if you were just picking a random smiley, I apologize for misunderstanding. I do appreciate your taking the time to look into it. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

New page

Hey, I created the page for a democracy activist Park Sang Hak, and I was wondering if you would take a look at it and tell me what you think? Also, I'm having trouble adding categories to the page, do you know what I might be able to do to correct that? Thanks!Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 19:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be glad to. It'll be a week or so before I get to it, though. I've been on Wikibreak and the work has piled up. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 16:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States Bill of Rights

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article United States Bill of Rights 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 GA bot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Manal al-Sharif

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Manal al-Sharif 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 GA bot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Manal al-Sharif

The article Manal al-Sharif you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Manal al-Sharif for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery 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 GA bot, on behalf of Retrolord -- Retrolord (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery

The article The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Retrolord -- Retrolord (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Khazar2 for helping to promote a multitude of articles to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. SMP0328. (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome and you deserve it. SMP0328. (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA Review for the Gammage Cup

Thanks for your review of the Gammage Cup. It was extremely helpful and I will continue to work on it. I just have two questions for you that have come up:

• First of all I was wondering if the amount of content in the article was adequate or if there was more needed.
• Secondly I wasn't sure how two address the issue relating to primary sources (weather to add sections, ect.)

Thanks,
Eatmark (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Eatmark

My pleasure--I'm glad it was a help. I'll respond to your questions there to keep the discussion in one place. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You're changing the topic of

By deleting the word unproven name and putting victim's name you are changing the topic. Please do not do this. You cannot change the topic of other user's discussion especially an RfC. Please do not do this again this is against Wikipedia policies. Not every edit is subjected to a consensus for example you cannot change the topic of RfC filed by another editor. TransVannian (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You said just yesterday on your talk page that you're a new user and don't know Wikipedia policies. You were correct that time, and wrong this time. -- Khazar2 (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ktzi'on Prison

Dear Khazar thank you for removing the tag on Operation Matateh. Could you look at the ones on Ktzi'ot Prison? Best wishes. Padres Hana (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done I don't have an immediate opinion on the other tags, but the POV tag is clearly out of date without ongoing discussion. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Q

If you have time, do you think you could give a pass over Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang in preparation for FA (just to make sure I'm not a complete idiot and missing something obvious, or if there are gaps)? It's a really good book (and in English too!), and I'd like to try and have it on the main page some time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look later this weekend. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

FAC: Trees (poem)

We've crossed paths a few times on WP:GAN, and I respect your keen eye on reviewing articles. As a Literature PhD, I think this might interest you.

I've spent some time working on an article about Kilmer's most beloved poem--"Trees"--and have today nominated at WP:FAC, the nomination is located here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trees (poem)/archive1. If you have the time to offer some comments or suggestions, I would be honoured.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the kind words, but FAC isn't really my bag--I'm pretty much a GA specialist these days. I do wish you luck in getting it through. The Superman II block quote is a really terrific touch. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. If you're interested in a read on another poetry topic, my previous, successful FA candidate, Duino Elegies will be TFA on 2 August.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I was the GA reviewer for that one--I remember it well! Congrats, and I'll look forward to seeing it hit the front page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

	Appreciate the review!
	I know you can't read this (and Google won't help) but you definitely deserve an addition to your library for dropping by and helping at Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang; really liked the copyedit too.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thanks for the book! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Always a pleasure to give you extra reading material ;-) BTW, next month I may bug you for a look at a considerably larger article... not done expanding yet, I want at least one more biography on the subject and a paper by A. H. Johns before I even consider sending it to GAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Happy to be "bugged"--drop me a line when it's ready. Actually, I can just give it a GA review if you like. I try not to do too many for people I'm pals with for form's sake, but it's been a while since I've done one for you and your work is consistently excellent. (Plus, I'd have no problem failing you if it came to that. ). So it's your call--I can read it pre-, post-, or for GA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I truly appreciate your continuing efforts on behalf of the Editor of the Week Project...from nominating and seconding to greeting the recepients. I was worried that the # of nominations had declined and that very few other WER members take the little bit of time to say "Well done". Thanks for making me smile.

A Nice Cup of Tea...enjoy!

```Buster Seven Talk 14:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your continuing leadership there. I come in contact with a lot of good editors through GA reviews, so I'll try to keep adding a name or two a month--I think it's a terrific way to highlight different contributions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Washington: A Life

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Washington: A Life 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 GA bot, on behalf of BuzyBody -- BuzyBody (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks

Thank you for reviewing those coin articles, I do appreciate it. Please let me know if I can review one of yours, I am said to be decent at reviewing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure--I'm hoping to get to the last one this afternoon/evening. Since you've got a law background, if you were interested in reviewing Third Amendment to the United States Constitution at some point, either informally or for GA, your input'd be welcome. But please don't feel you need to reciprocate-- I quite enjoy GA reviewing for its own sake, and this was just a small gesture of thanks for all the quality articles you're always producing. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be happy to. Not a lot of case law on that one, I remember.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Almost none at all, really--a startlingly easy article to write. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Just feel like sharing

	Woo-hoo!
	Feel like I have to share with someone. I just got my first article published in a journal! Woot! ("Nationalism in Armijn Pane's Kami, Perempuan: A Postcolonial Study").  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That's great, great news! Congrats! ::clink:: -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Clink indeed! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

C-SPAN

Hi Khazar2, I wanted to let you know that another editor has reviewed the C-SPAN edits and updated the article for me. If you still wanted to look over the article, please go right ahead. I'm planning on submitting it for FAC shortly so any extra review before then would be helpful. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I don't know if I'll have time to review soon, but best of luck at FAC! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Foreign-language version

Hi Khazar2,
I would like to invite you to the discussion about the article Foreign-language version. Thank you for joining us, Hoerestimmen (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm honestly not knowledgeable enough to pitch in much here; just fixing some minor grammar points at the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Third Amendment to the United States Constitution

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Third Amendment to the United States Constitution 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 GA bot, on behalf of Wehwalt -- Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Article

The article Third Amendment to the United States Constitution you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Third Amendment to the United States Constitution for comments about the article. Well done! Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That's five amendments so far this year. Starting to wonder if I should just go for the whole kaboodle, but the 2nd is probably more hassle than that project would be worth. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Washington: A Life

Hi. I wanted to introduce myself and thank you again for allowing a recruitee to review your article, I posted my review a few minutes ago and am excited to see your thoughts. Thanks again!--BuzyBody (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and suggestions--working on implementing them now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: If that painting is PD, that cover is so simple you can put it on Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I saw your revert on Washington: A Life, it's fine, didn't really knew about the direct quote. BTW, can you hand some assistance in other page? Thanks. Capitals00 (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. What specifically do you need on other pages? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Jawaharlal Nehru, check the talk page, and edits, and suggest, thanks. Capitals00 (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

An article like that is a big job--I'm going to have to pass. Best of luck with it, -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Washington: A Life

The article Washington: A Life you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Washington: A Life for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of BuzyBody -- BuzyBody (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Washington: A Life

The article Washington: A Life you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Washington: A Life for comments about the article. Thank you! --BuzyBody (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Martinelli

Hi, I am trying to add what I feel its important information to President martinelli's page, but clearly I dont know how to do it properly according to wikipedia standards. Can you give me any pointers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackshark5 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Sorry for the preformatted warning templates, I've got a lot going on today. Two rules of thumb are that you can't post material cut-and-pasted from other sites (for copyright reasons), and you can't post negative information without sources. It's fine to post a summary if you're sure the sources are reliable sources by Wikipedia standards (see WP:Reliable sources). I don't know enough about the Council on Hemispheric Affairs to say immediately if they qualify or not, but the Knight Center statement should be attributed to them in text to preserve Wikipedia's neutrality (see WP:NPOV). So, for example, "In 2012, the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas criticized Martinelli's accusations against a journalist..."

I realize this sounds like a lot of policy, but writing about sitting presidents is a delicate thing, and it's important to be balanced and neutral. Hope this helps! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Bill of Rights

I've reviewed. Pretty damn good, though with a short list of quibbles. Adam Cuerden <sup>(talk)</sup> 13:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

I wasn't aware of the quotation system! Cheers! Bboppy (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you for your work! Wikipedia always needs more good copyediting. Drop by and say hi any time. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for EotW nomination

Many thanks for nominating me for the Editor of the Week. It was a tremendous compliment, and I'm grateful for it.

Of course, now I really have to keep my promise about helping to review GA nominations... I'm going to watch one more of my own through the process, and then I'll have four, which'll be enough of a sample to give me an idea of how it should be done. I'll probably be in touch with you when I'm ready to try it myself, if you're still up to mentoring me.

Thanks again for the nomination -- Ammodramus (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure; the nomination was well-deserved. And as for GA reviews, I'd be happy to help any time, just let me know. Enjoy the week! -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States Bill of Rights

The article United States Bill of Rights you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:United States Bill of Rights for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

United States Bill of Rights

I have promoted this to GA, and must apologise it took so long. Great work! As usual, the review follows. Adam Cuerden <sup>(talk)</sup> 15:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:United States Bill of Rights/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 17:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Just claiming this before I begin. Complicated articles are not ones you want another reviewer to claim half-way through. =) Adam Cuerden <sup>(talk)</sup> 17:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam! I should warn you this may be slightly rawer than the other two, as I haven't had as many collaborators--your input will be very welcome. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is taking a little bit. I've been running around like mad to get a few things done. Adam Cuerden <sup>(talk)</sup> 19:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

No rush at all. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thought I'd give you a reminder ping about this one--I don't mind waiting, just wanted to make sure it hadn't fallen through the cracks. Thanks again for agreeing to review this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I know about it, I've just not been sleeping well, and thus not been as up for weighty law issues. I'll try to get it done today, though. Adam Cuerden <sup>(talk)</sup> 17:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it-- I know too well what a pain that is. Take your time, and feel better! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, having written a GAN of my own in the time it took to get to this, I think it's clear I need to get my arse in gear. Let's begin

The Anti-Federalists:

• "The Anti-Federalist Papers" is mentioned, but not explained. A brief description would help clarify what's being discussed.
• For that matter, should we presume the reader knows what "Federalist" and "Anti-Federalist" mean? I mean, I know what they are, but I also actually spent a fair bit of time reading up on American History as a kid. Others might not. Probably the easiest way to explain it is in the context of explaining why the Articles of Confederation ended up being made so weak that they had to be replaced. Use your judgement on this one, though.
• Oh. I see the term is defined... four paragraphs in. Not ideal.
• Again, not quite enough context for "Federalist No. 46". Defining terms would help.

•  Done All the above, I think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ratification and the Massachusetts Compromise

• "...erupting into a fistfight between a Federalist delegate and Elbridge Gerry..." - It would be better to say "beteween Federalist delegate Name McSurname and Elbridge Gerry".
• "Articles Congress" should probably be defined. It's somewhat clear from context, but, given that the next section immediately begins by talking about Congress proper, a little bit more delineation would help.

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The First Congress

• As said above, it would be a good idea to clearly delineate the Congress here mentioned from the Articles Congress mentioned immediately beforehand.

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Application

• As with - was it Thirteenth or Fourteenth - it would be useful to briefly complete the story of how the American Indian tribal governments were brought into Constitutional law.

• I'm not sure that history is as relevant here as it was for the Fourteenth (which dealt with citizenship issues). There is a sentence that "In Talton v. Mayes (1896), the Court ruled that Constitutional protections, including the provisions of the Bill of Rights, do not apply to the actions of American Indian tribal governments." -- that's the best I've found so far. My understanding is that the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 applied some provisions similar to the Bill of Rights to tribal governments, but by direct act of Congress instead of by extending Constitutional protections; it may be a little off-topic to include here. You may know more about this law than I do, though (I know almost nothing)--any suggestions? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Speech rights were expanded significantly in a series of 20th- and 21st-century court decisions that protected various forms of political speech, anonymous speech, campaign financing, pornography, and school speech;" Optional: name or link the decisions. The latter is a little easter-eggy, but might be alright under IAR.

• The problem is that most of these have at least 3-5 major decisions, so there's no one decision to link to. I think I'd rather just direct the reader to that article if that's okay with you--it's simply too detailed to sum up here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

References

• http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3048900191.html, "U*X*L Encyclopedia of U.S. History", isn't as obviously a good source as the rest of the sources. Should it be replaced?

• I replaced the statement that relies on it solely; the other it's a back-up reference, so I left it if that's all right. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That should be everything. Adam Cuerden <sup>(talk)</sup> 13:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree with your comments at first glance. I'm busy with this and that today but should be able to get to this tomorrow morning. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries! In all honesty, for such a complicated article, this, if anything, had far fewer issues than I expected. So, you know, great job! Adam Cuerden <sup>(talk)</sup> 17:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it. I think I've addressed all the above points but happy to do more. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That looks like everything, then. ✓ Pass

For the record, well, as I've said, I'm not a lawyer, so I'd prefer not to tell you to go to FA by myself, but this is clearly ready to begin a pre-FA peer review, at the least. Adam Cuerden <sup>(talk)</sup> 15:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thanks as always for your time and thoughtful suggestions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox help

hi. i am working on my wiki sandbox. could you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parth pratim (talk • contribs) 02:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. Can you be more specific about what help you need? -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I am a new editor and I keep trying to add links to my sandbox. please advise if you can.Partha pratim gogoi (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it not working to add links to your sandbox? You can add a wikilink by adding two brackets: [[Iceland]] -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I am trying to add these references.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/realestate/24living.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1375197985-wh+SobaazeoORzZ1AvGzDg

http://www.detail360.com/architect/gordon-kahn-and-associates-pfid_2389135.htm

Can you help me with reference code? Partha pratim gogoi (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I added one as an example for you. Just click on "edit" or "edit source" (don't use visual editor) and you can see what I did. Happy editing! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate it! I'll use this code as my example now. Thanks a bunch. 122.177.74.171 (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Anytime. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

At bats

"At bats" is perfectly appropriate. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not the standard usage for any major publication I can find, including sports-specific publications. E.g., [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. What are you looking at for your source? -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The phrase comes from the baseball rule, which can be found in the official mlb publication here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

But even the official rules always use the hyphenated version for the plural "at-bats", right? E.g., the link from our at bat article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There is certainly not a completely uniform approach, but the highest-level and official sources tend to not use the hyphen. So there is no reason to "correct" a usage that is used by mlb.com, etc.

• The Official Baseball Rules (as codified and adopted by the Professional Baseball Official Playing Rules Committee), published by The Sporting News through at least 2005, and the Official Rules of Major League Baseball, published by the commissioner's office through Triumph Books in the late 1990s, never used the hyphen.
• The Macmillan Baseball Encyclopedia (MLB's official encyclopedia through the 1990 edition) always used "at bats", from the first edition (1969) through the final tenth (1995).
• Total Baseball (MLB's official encyclopedia beginning with the 1995 edition) used "at-bats" beginning with the first edition (1989), but dropped the hyphen beginning with the sixth edition (1997); the final seventh edition was in 1999.
• The official American League Red Book and National League Green Book did not use the hyphen at all (from the late 1940s) until the AL began using it in 1987; the NL book never used it.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• So, basically, the official baseball rules were the authoritative source when you thought they supported your preferred spelling; when it turned out to be the other way round, you had to do some additional Googling. Well, can you give me a link or two to these so I can sort this out? Also, are there any current publications that don't use the hyphen? I notice most of your examples are older; it's possible this usage has just changed over time.

The other problem here is that many Wikipedia baseball articles use a mix of "at-bats" and "at bats". For example, two of the articles where you reverted me now are back to having both forms, which just looks ugly. It seems logical to standardize this per the current official rules and secondary publication usage. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, never mind. Frankly, I think the good faith thing to do after getting your first example completely backwards would have been to at least acknowledge that; the fact that that didn't happen suggests to me that this conversation has already passed the point where reason is going to matter, and this isn't an important enough issue to me for a hyphen-fight to the death through the baseball encyclopedias of the '80s. I won't change any more using AWB; I may still occasionally, manually standardize articles that use a mix of the two. Fair enough? -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is clear that the predominant use in the official source is to not use the hyphen. I acknowledged that "There is certainly not a completely uniform approach". Perhaps you missed it. But I also wrote that "the highest-level and official sources tend to not use the hyphen". I still stand by that. The first ref I gave you was to the official baseball rules, which predominantly use the non-hyphen spelling. Baseball sometimes has interesting spelling conundrums. My favorite is RBIs ... analogous to MIAs ... rather than RsBI.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The current official rules appear to me to use the hyphen every single time they use the plural "at bats"; I'm not sure what you consider "not completely uniform" about that. Though perhaps you're right that usage in the '80s and early '90s was more variable. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I owe you an apology. I did miss part of your comment; the indent-then-outdent threw me off and made me think you were just hitting me with a second round of examples. I should have looked closer, and I'm sorry about that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Are you suggesting that the "proper" use is with a hyphen for singular, and without one for plural? If so, what is the basis for that? I believe this issue has been discussed a number of times across the project; if either of us has time or inclination, we can search for the discussions. I see one at "at bat" ... which, of course, does not use the hyphen ... as a result apparently of the consensus, after discussion. It is hard to search for on google search, as it does not seem to distinguish between the two as best I can tell. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm saying exactly the opposite, actually. The plural seems consistently hyphenated, though the singular is variable. If you look at a section of the MLB rules that uses both "at bat" and "at-bats", like the one I linked for you above, it's clear that they always use the hyphen for the plural. This is also true of all pages I see on the MLB site, including records, rules, and news coverage. You can just type in "site:mlb.com "at bats" " into Google and see hundreds of examples, like so. So I can't argue with the 1980s and '90s baseball publications that I don't have access to, but the MLB current usage seems both obvious and consistent. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oh ... I thought you were saying that when the singular is used, as in a batters time "at bat", it is without the hyphen, as reflected on the mlb.com site at the official rules here.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• No, "time at bat" is definitely not hyphenated. The phrase "an at-bat" appears to occasionally be hyphenated. "At-bats", which is what I was attempting to change, appears (currently) to be always hyphenated by MLB, sports publications, and major newspapers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I shouldn't have let myself get sucked in again. I've agreed not to fix any more of these, and I've no doubt we both have better things to work on. I am glad, though, to meet another editor with my taste for minutiae--cheers, and thanks for your work, -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm happy as well to meet another seasoned editor, who similarly is ever-in-search it would seem of the sometimes elusive "right answer," but who seasons that with a "let's not miss the forest for the trees" reasonableness. I wasn't seeking to stoke the flames, just to be clearer, but I hope you didn't mistake that for something other. Pleasure working with you. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Pennsylvanian

Thanks for stepping in and completing the review! Best, Mackensen (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome; it was a pleasure to read. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Khazar2. You have new messages at Talk:Euro banknotes/GA3.
Message added 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question regarding references. – Plarem <sup>(User talk)</sup> 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Banner removal

What are your suggestions to submit a request for banner removal? Thanks for your suggestions and help. Hiland109 (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the article. You can actually just remove a banner yourself if you feel it's been added inappropriately, though it would be courteous to discuss on the talk page first if it's a recent addition. Is there a particular article you're looking at? -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I am new to this so I am reaching out to you for the help. Take a look. Do you think you can help to remove the banner? The article in reference is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Benmosche Thanks for your reply and your collaboration. Hiland109 (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar enough with that article to say if it's out of date or not, unfortunately. My suggestion is to post to the article talk page (Talk:Bob_Benmosche) to ask if editors feel the problem has been addressed, and if it's okay to remove the tag. If no one responds in a week or two, go ahead and take it down. All best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll circle back about removing the banner. Any other advice or links to remove the banner? Hiland109 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

None beyond what I already suggested--post at the talk page to ask if editors feel the problem has been addressed, and if it's okay to remove the tag. If no one responds in a week or two, go ahead and take it down. If they have objections, you'll have to work those out there. All best-- Khazar2 (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ricardo Arias Calderón

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Ricardo Arias Calderón 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 GA bot, on behalf of QatarStarsLeague -- QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Recruitment Notice

Hello! I just wanted to remind our recruiters (you) about some things that seem to be forgotten about during recruitments and one "minor" change in the instructions. When starting a new recruitment or finishing one, please please please, update your column(s) in this list. Also, please remember to update this page accordingly. This will help keep track of past and current recruitments. Regarding the change within the instructions, the GA Bot has now created a separate list of GA nominations including only the nominations by nominators that included themselves in this list. When asking a recruitee to be a nomination, suggest they go to this page and pick a nomination from there. This is not mandatory but strongly recommended as we have already had one case where a recruitee was "scared" by a nominator (that was not on the list stating that they are fine with recruitees reviewing their nominations) and left the recruitment. Thanks! --Dom497 (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Most Famous Man in America

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article The Most Famous Man in America 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 GA bot, on behalf of Diannaa -- Diannaa (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ta Phong Tan

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Ta Phong Tan 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 GA bot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ta Phong Tan

The article Ta Phong Tan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Ta Phong Tan for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ricardo Arias Calderón

The article Ricardo Arias Calderón you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ricardo Arias Calderón for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of QatarStarsLeague -- QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ta Phong Tan

The article Ta Phong Tan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ta Phong Tan for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Question re Database Reports

Hi. I am trying to learn more about the inner workings of Wikipedia & stumbled onto this page [[8]]. Can you tell me what it is about? It was confusing to me. Thanks!--BuzyBody (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Some lists of articles are automatically generated to aid cleanup. For example, Wikipedia:Database reports/Unbelievable life spans finds biography articles with unrealistic birth/death dates; an editor can then see it on the list and address the issue manually, to see if it's a typo, a legend, etc. Wikipedia:Database reports/Potential biographies of dead people (1) lists articles that both give a death date and are listed in BLP categories, meaning that something needs to be fixed. I'm not familiar with all these lists, but that's the general idea. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Definitely helps. :)--BuzyBody (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Most Famous Man in America

The article The Most Famous Man in America you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:The Most Famous Man in America for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Diannaa -- Diannaa (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Khazar2. Did this notification get missed? The article is on hold since last weekend. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I responded to all points just a few hours after you put your review up, I think. Is more work needed? Just let me know. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Dude! it looks like I forgot to watch-list the page. Sorry about that. I will finish it off this afternoon when I get back from the dentist. now. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ha, no problem. Good luck with yer teeths... -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Where does it fit in Wikipedia:Good articles/Philosophy and religion? It might make more sense to list it under world history. I am going out now and will be back in 1-2 hours. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

"Religious figures and leaders" might be closest fit, but perhaps it's best to just stick it under "Historians, chroniclers and history books" -- the religion category doesn't seem to have a section for books. Thanks again! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Rotnei Clarke/GA1

Thanks for the review... I would have appreciated it if you put the article "on hold" rather than failing. I had to wait 4 months for a review and was not even given a couple days to fix or defend anything I did when you yourself said the article was "close". Either you were just being polite and you really think the article is crap or I feel I should have had a chance to address your concerns without having to wait another 4 months to get another review. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't by any means think the article is crap, and I meant what I said in the review--the article is really good work in many respects. That's different to me than it being "close", though, and if I did say that (I'm not sure where you're seeing it), I apologize for the misstatement. My take is that it'll need substantial rewriting and rechecking in some sections to address the issues I saw; generally if a substantial rewrite is required, I think it's better that that take place outside the GA review and that a fresh reviewer look at the resulting draft.

I realize you've had to wait a long time, and I really do apologize for that. If/when you renominate, I'd be glad to put a note at WT:GAN mentioning your previous wait and asking if anyone will pick it up more quickly this time. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. You are correct that you didn't use the word close - I should not have put it in quotes - but that was certainly my impression from the wording of the review. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		For your extensive and high quality work on reviewing articles and reducing the huge GAN backlog. Your tireless work has not gone unnoticed, and I present you with this Premium Reviewer Barnstar. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Most Famous Man in America

The article The Most Famous Man in America you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Most Famous Man in America for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Diannaa -- Diannaa (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)