Jump to content

User talk:Khazar2/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Rev barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. Assessments are what I like doing the most here, so both reviewer barnstars are very much appreciated. It's good to see that you and Bahraini Activist are still going strong btw. INeverCry 07:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Keep up the good work, Khazar2 (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
:) Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I've cleared up the backlog. I'll look in on it now and then to keep it from building up again. It's amazing how many of the articles I assessed were DYK! I would guess that atleast 60 or 70%. INeverCry 19:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Terrific--My watchlist has been alive with your efforts all day! Thanks again for the work, Khazar2 (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Chipper Jones Edit

Thanks for the cleanup of the RBI ref; I wasn't sure what to do with when I saw that my ref didn't work , so I deleted it. Thanks again.

Hey, it's the least I can do for a player I like as much as Chipper Jones... but the real credit goes to the wizards behind AutoWikiBrowser, not me. Khazar2 (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip; I'll start using it right away.

Mills

Wev done a good cleanup. Im burnt out now, so ill get to it later if you dont. Just finding a source for what i added and heading offLihaas (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, good progress. I'm going to try to hit the VP now Pres this evening, too. Cheers! Khazar2 (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Mostly, VP left and other early life details. Otherwise its in remarkaly good shaped from where we picked it upLihaas (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Yep, looking good. I've gotten side-tracked on some other things but may try to work on the new pres later this week. Pleasure working with you as always. Khazar2 (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

onboard

Hi, I see you're changing "onboard" to "on board" with automated tools. I'm curious which discussion or source didn't like "onboard". Seems okay in BritEng, and has always been okay in AmEng. - Dank (push to talk) 12:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind ... I see it's not in SOED, even as an adjective. I'm fine with the change, even though it's standard in AmEng. - Dank (push to talk) 12:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. My understanding per the source you quote above, too, is that "on-board" is only to be used as an attributive adjective--that is, one that immediately precedes the noun. I believe this is the reason the fix was introduced into AWB. Some false positives are still possible, though--I'm doublechecking each, but quite capable of error. So if you see one that it is an attributive adjective, please revert me. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not in favor of the hyphenated form (except attributively). I've started a discussion over at WT:SHIPS in favor of the AWB changes. Thanks for helping out! - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
My pleasure. I'm a new dad, so it's nice to have a minor task to do with a free hand while Little Miss Khazar sleeps in my lap. =) Khazar2 (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Heh, it's fun how it all fits together. Hope she's a heavy sleeper. - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to jinx it, but so far so good... Khazar2 (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Great explanation you gave on Wikipedia_talk:SHIPS#Onboard! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks--used to be an English prof, so breaking down grammar is right in my wheelhouse... Khazar2 (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Anaheim police shooting and protests

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm just as surprised as you! Khazar2 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Have a look

When you have time, could you take a look at Death of Abdulredha Buhmaid? See if you can find any POV and remove it. Thanks. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks really good to me; it's another case where the Bahraini government doesn't come out looking well, but everything is so thoroughly documented that the article still seems to me NPOV. I played with the prose a bit, feel free to revert if you feel I changed too much anywhere... nice work on this one as always-- Khazar2 (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added you to Missing Wikipedians

Just to let you know (I am supposed to - this is what it says). Ottawahitech (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Well, I won't stop you, but I promise I'm right here. =) Khazar2 (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This looks funny! How is Little Miss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
She's great, thanks! We've been blessed with the world's least fussy baby so far, which is great because of my fibro. Half my editing these days is done with a sleeping baby in my lap.
How's everything for you? Khazar2 (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Everything - too difficult to tell. Fine, generally speaking, see my user. I recently got more hits than ever for an article translated (partly) from here to German and shown there on the Main page, with an awesome image that will look familiar. (If you are curious, click on "how many hits".) We go for quality, just starting, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Congrats! I'll check it out... Khazar2 (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

AWB

Could you please stop using AWB to change the word 'onboard' to ' on board'. When used in relation to ships, onboard = aboard a ship, on board = on a board, as per the edit to 27 January on tbe January 1981 article, where I have twice reverted the AWB editing. The use of the word 'onboard' which your edit changed on tbe Amnesty International article is also correct, note the article states 'British-English is used. I have reverted a couple of others, where the wording is used in Ship related articles There are many others, so could you please go through them manually and check the usage. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to join the discussion here or here, but the short version is that dictionaries and newspaper searches don't seem to back that up in American or British English. Khazar2 (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I have added my 'tuppence-worth' here. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

AWB, {{ibid}} and Op. cit.

Could you please stop using AWB to insert {{ibid}} tags in articles which use Op. cit. in shortened footnote citations. Op. cit. is used in an endnote or footnote to refer the reader to a previously cited work, standing in for repetition of the full title of the work. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Op. cit. is discouraged by WP:IBID, but I think you're right that it probably shouldn't be tagged. I'll pass your concerns along at WT:AWB. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I hereby award this barnstar to editor Khazar2 for being an excellent all round contributor to Wikipedia. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Very kind of you. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Commenting here to say that I am generally impressed by the levelheadedness and dedication shown at ITN and this recognition is well deserved. I particularly appreciate the interest shown in supporting articles being updated and pushed through rather than bogged down in debate. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks--I'm an admirer of your comments and work there as well. Khazar2 (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

ITN

Thanks for your outstanding contributions to Wikipedia! -Zanhe (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the initiative to give these out again! Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

ITN for 2012 Egyptian–Israeli border attack

Thanks for keeping ITN updated. -Zanhe (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your tireless contributions to articles on a wide range of topics, and helping contribute to them in a friendly, cooperative way, as well as taking the time to properly format them. Activism1234 23:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! It's nice to have an outlet for my natural pedantry. =) Khazar2 (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Re post on my talk page

Re this: in fact, I only reinserted my latest addition while I left the other contentious bits (the lead, the title of the 'Defections' section, the order in which the two claims are presented, etc.) as they were. Calling this a reversal, and thereby a violation of the 3RR, is quite a stretch. Furthermore, your claim that there's a talk page consensus is quite disingenuous as you know full well that there are only three people discussing, of which one disagrees. That's not a consensus. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Another attack in Sinai

Another attack just happened, only 10 miles from the Israeli border.

Gunmen opened fire early Wednesday morning on a police checkpoint near el-Arish in the northern Sinai Peninsula, approximately 10 miles from Israel’s border with Egypt.

There were no immediate reports of injuries.

Egyptian state news agency MENA reported that “unknown gunmen opened fire on a checkpoint on the main road between el-Arish and Rafah,” and that exchanges of gunfire continued late into the night.

Do you think that this should go in to the article, maybe in a new section, "Subsequent attack?" Or do you think it's too early to decide? This may also show that Egypt was more alert and ready this time, following what happened last time.

Thanks. --Activism1234 01:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's best to pluralize the article title and combine them. Even if different attackers are involved, these will be discussed in tandem for some time, I imagine. Khazar2 (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm a page move though is a major change, and for that I think it'd be best to wait a bit and see whether this is as serious an incident or not, as it appears the terrorists haven't been that successful either and haven't infiltrated any borders, so it may just be an unrelated incident. Maybe we should just wait a few hours or a day and see what happens with it, I think that'd be the best idea personally. And if it still becomes major news, or even a minor failed attempt but a related incident, it can be reinserted and appropriate title change. Hopefully you'll agree with this as well, if not let me know. --Activism1234 02:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm good either way. I'll open a thread on the talk page and see if anyone else has input. Khazar2 (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll be back in about an hour. Good idea. Thanks. --Activism1234 02:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Nigeria mosque attack

Found this interesting, may go in the "reaction" section, as it happened in the same village, same area, just a day after. If you feel it should, feel free to add it in, or tell me and I'll do it. --Activism1234 15:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Link isn't working. Let me try this http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/gunmen-kill-three-nigeria-mosque-attack
Good call. I started to put it under "Reactions", but worried that implied that was retaliation (which isn't clear yet). So I added it in under a new heading. Will Google and try to find more now. Khazar2 (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I suggest putting it as a subsection to "Reactions," since if it's unrelated (highly unlikely) it would probably go in a new article, I feel. Don't have particularly strong feelings on it though, so whatever you feel best. --Activism1234 15:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Since three people committed both attacks, it's possible this is the same guys, just trying very hard to stir up sectarian conflict; I'm worried "reactions" will imply that it's retaliation, which we're not sure of yet. But we'll have a better sense when we see more news over the next 24 hours in any case. Khazar2 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. OK sounds good. --Activism1234 16:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

GA

You can add Ratna Sarumpaet to your list soon (see review) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Always glad to ride on your coattails! Thanks for letting me know, and congrats on seeing another quality article through. Khazar2 (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, around here, we just worry about NSFbaby. And luckily, she can't see that far... Khazar2 (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Ha! Articles like that are what I love so much about Wikipedia. Where else would I have read that? Khazar2 (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No idea, LOL. Finding sources for that was a pain and a half (sparked when I discovered the image when archiving images from the Met, then another user indicated that it was actually a rather well-known series). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Upgrade article status

I think that the article on the attack is looking really good, and has a lot of information, both on the attack and on reactions to the attack. The infobox is very detailed and referenced, and with a great map. How would I go about seeking an upgrade for the article? It's currently a "start-class" article.

I'm new to this stuff.

Thanks. --Activism1234 04:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Your expansions have been comprehensive and terrific, and the main page exposure is getting a lot of good eyes on it.
You could ask someone at WP:WikiProject Egypt or WP:WikiProject Israel to reassess; if somebody has time, they might be willing to check it for B-class, etc. But honestly, WikiProjects can go years without reassessing articles sometimes, so don't let the tag "start-class" bug you.
Another approach would be to go to WP:GAN and nominate it for a Good Article. I think it would have a great chance of passing, and the feedback would be good for improving what's been done so far in any case. If you pass the Good Article review, then that will be listed as the article's status.
Good luck with it! I'll still be watching it, even if I'm participating less now that it's cycling off the main page. Khazar2 (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I'll appreciate it. I'll aim for a B first, then good article. Thanks. --Activism1234 04:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Null edits

Please review I don't personally mind so much, but null edits such as [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5] are discouraged. I have about 10,000 items on my watchlist and these can quickly add up. Thanks for your otherwise very fine work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out; I thought AWB was flagging them because that hard return would cause the page to display slightly differently, but not the case, it appears. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 Egypt-Israel border attack

I like your improvements and edits to this article. They're really great!

I was just wondering - do you have a special tool you use to format date/time, or authors names (last, first). For example, see this diff. Or do you do it manually?

Thanks, and keep up the good work!

--Activism1234 22:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, one more thing - I'm not so sure how accurate this source is about it being an abduction plot. I've heard from a number of references that the IDF is still investigating the incident, and it's possible it was an abudction plot. --Activism1234 23:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Nope, just did a quick CTRL +F for ", 20" and "author=". I think such a tool may exist but I've been proactive enough to seek it out. Thanks for your own work on the article! I started this stub last night and it's great to see how much it's expanded from being on the main page.
As for the Associated Press story mentioning an abduction plot, I'm by no means married to it, so if you can find a sensible way to indicate that it's more speculative--perhaps just mentioning "possibly a plot" or some such?--it's fine by me. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Yup sounds good. And I use "Prove it" to add references, which makes the formatting of the date in a different format. I'm not sure how to get around that. As for authors, I'm not sure how that came out either, since I entered author as last name first name, but maybe it was just a temporary glitch.
And I'll look around for some sources about the abduction, and see how to edit it. It's looking like a good article, great job. --Activism1234 23:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
My solution has been to just put {{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate=6 August 2012}} on my user page bracketed by nowiki tags; I keep it open while editing and then paste it over every time I need it. I bet Prove it is more efficient, though. Incidentally, nothing about the format of what you've added is wrong, I'm just changing for consistency within the article. Thanks, and thanks again for your own work there! Khazar2 (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm interesting tip. All right I'll keep that in mind. And I'll get back to what we mentioned above regarding the article a bit later, as I'm a bit busy right now, but that should be done soon hopefully. --Activism1234 00:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Updated it with what we discussed above and a bit more info. I also created subsections for "reactions," which I feel makes it more organized and easier to navigate. Hope it's good! --Activism1234 03:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Good indeed--thanks again for taking point on the update. Khazar2 (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

New thing... I'm not that familiar with the copyright of uploading images on Wikipedia... However, this article could definitely use some images of the attack, and I do remember seeing some (for example, see here, which should be sufficient]]). Now, a similar attack in 2011 allowed the file [[File:Terror_Strikes_Israeli_Civilians_in_Southern_Israel.jpg|picture]] from the IDF Spokesperson's Unit from Flickr by saying that it "is released under a Creative Commons license by the Israeli Defence Forces Spokesperson's Unit." As of now, the images in the link I gave you to the recent 2012 attack aren't on Flikr. Do you know if the Creative Commons license would still apply though, to the website, and I'd be allowed to upload it?

If I was too confusing or wordy, let me know.

Thanks. --Activism1234 03:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question. My assumption would be that we can't use it unless it's specifically noted as licensed under Creative Commons, but it's possible that as a government agency all IDF photographs are allowable to use. (That's the way it generally works for US gov content). But I don't know Israel or the IDF's specific policies. I believe WP has some boards you can ask at about image-related questions, you might poke around for those. Khazar2 (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
OK I'll ask around there, what I meant was that if the file from last year was allowed to be uploaded, then maybe we could assume that all IDF-taken pictures are the same in regards to copyright, and can be uploaded as well. But I'll doublecheck on the noticeboards. --Activism1234 03:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm really not sure. I agree it'd be a nice improvement, though--good luck! Khazar2 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I was doing some research on it, and found this from Wikimedia Israel:

The spokesperson unit of the Israel Defense Forces began publishing its photographs online (on its Flickr account) under a free Creative Commons license. This move follows a long and protracted process of legislation promoted by WMIL in discussions in the Science and Technology Committee of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. While legislation meant to free any work created by the Israeli government of copyright has not yet been accepted, the move by the IDF is certainly motivated by it. Hundreds of IDF Spokesperson images are now in use on Wikimedia projects. WMIL released a widely circulated press release condoning the move by the IDF spokesperson.

However, the photos from the IDF Spokesperson website haven't been uploaded to their Flickr account. I'm wondering whether it's still allowed to be uploaded... I sent an email to them, could take a while if they respond at all. --Activism1234 02:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure. You might attempt to upload it listing this as a rationale. If you're wrong, no harm done, and one of Wikipedia's image experts would delete it in a day or two while mentioning to you why. If you're right, it stays. You might also ask User:Crisco1492, who knows a lot about image uploading and is one of Wikipedia's nicest guys to boot. Good luck! Khazar2 (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll ask him. I'm a bit hesitant, since some of the images I clicked on uploaded to Wikipedia by the IDF had a statement underneath that an admin confirmed it was available on the official IDF Flickr account, so perhaps only the Flickr account pictures are acceptable, and not their official website. But I'll ask this user. Thanks. --Activism1234 02:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Crisco is great! He showed me that the IDF Blog links to a certain copyright license that allows us to reproduce images on their blog. So I'll upload it and insert into article. --Activism1234 03:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Terrific-- thanks for doing the investigating on this. A picture will be a great addition. Khazar2 (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Have a Barnstar!

The In The News Barnstar
Your efforts in In The News section of the main page are well admired. Thanks to you many stories that were going to get ignored were posted. I also appreciate your approach in countering US bias there and attempts to reform the section to be more objective. Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that some care! Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ha, thanks! I was literally just this minute looking over the page and grumbling to myself. I'm glad to continue to see you there, too-- Khazar2 (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree, definitely nice to see. BTW, your GA count needs an update ;)
And the other article I showed you got its plus. I'm thinking FA would be fun. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems like a great FA topic--and well done on the GA. Khazar2 (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
That's a very interesting idea. It'd be a fun capstone to the work I've been doing there. I might expand a bit over the next week and get back to you--thanks! Khazar2 (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I would suggest making the table default to chronological (oldest first), but I can mess around with the table if you want. The awardees could probably use a general reference to CPJ's site, rather than an individual reference like at List of films of the Dutch East Indies (not an FL yet, but I don't foresee any problems), so you wouldn't need a refs column. The only thing that may be an issue is getting images, but there's probably a couple with usable images (like Goenawan Mohamad) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Cool. I'll take a look at that link and a few FLs to get ideas. Khazar2 (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
(watching) You probably know that you can make the list a table sortable for several criteria, compare Chorale cantata (Bach), not yet available but dreamed about: works of Franz Kafka, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda--I'll take a look at those options, too... Khazar2 (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Awesome. Particularly like Goenawan Mohamad with the cheroot. Khazar2 (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep, they are. The website appears to have gone live at around that time, so they just tossed up a list of previous winners without the bios, etc. So hopefully the descriptors won't be needed, because it'll be a little trickier. Still, the Washington Post and Associated Press covered this every year for a while, so we can get descriptors from there if we can find those articles archived; I've done that before to fill out articles on individual winners.
Anyway, thanks for the help--I'll let you take point on the nom, but I have it watchlisted and will be glad to pitch in. Khazar2 (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, right now we're trying to get her interested in anything besides staring directly into the lamp; perhaps Dad doing a flat horse dance would be just what she needs. Khazar2 (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
lol. Khazar2 (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

New insertions

Please see this new section on the talk page when you get a chance. I am sending you this notification as you have been involved greatly in the article and talk page.

Thanks.

--Activism1234 22:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Pussy Riot

Love your work on this article. I just wanted to let you know that the ref you recently added (ref # 35) is missing the archive url, causing it to show in references as an error. INeverCry 18:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for catching that--too many tabs open at once, it seems. I'll be back in a second to fix. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Isn't it obvious why you deserve this barnstar?

What's not so obvious is why I haven't given this earlier... Oh well, better late than never! Activism1234 01:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Heh, you actually did give me one six days ago--but I'll happily take 'em both! Seriously, though, thanks; I've really enjoyed our collaborations so far, and hope they'll be the first of many. Khazar2 (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Damn. Amnesia, what can I tell you. All right, you deserve both anyway... Btw, I'm planning on filing a DYK nomination about Egypt arresting "Bin Laden of Sinai" in the 2012 border attack article. It's an interesting nickname, makes for an interesting DYK, in my opinion. --Activism1234 01:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think an ITN appearance disqualifies for DYK. You might consider nominating it for a Good Article, though, or once things stabilize with the situation, even a Featured. Khazar2 (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh didn't realize that :( since no one seems to be responding on Wikiproject Israel to rate it, I'll take it to good article for now, and afterwards featured if it passes through. --Activism1234 02:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
You might double-check at WT:DYK that this is still the rule; I simply remember this from seeing it earlier this year. Sorry about that. I do think GA would be a great next step for this. The only thing I can see potentially breaking against you is that the situation is still developing. But I would say try now--whether they tell you to come back later or not, you'll still get some good feedback for revision. Kudos for continuing to develop this one! Khazar2 (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah checked out the main page just now and it says "Articles that have been featured on the main page's In the news section are ineligible. If an article is linked to at ITN but not the featured ITN article, it is still eligible for DYK." Oh well. I nominated it for GA. It's ongoing, but that's only the operations in response, and they're dying down more or less. --Activism1234 02:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Good luck! Just let me know if there's any way I can pitch in. Khazar2 (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Made a new DYK on an article I just created. Not an article up your alley (slightly up mine), but felt it would be interesting for a DYK. --Activism1234 03:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like an interesting topic, and right up DYK's alley. You'll probably need to improve the inline sourcing for it to pass, though--I believe the DYK rule of thumb is at least one citation per paragraph (which is a good rule of thumb for Wikipedia generally). Hopefully that won't be an issue, though, as you seem to have a good range of sources for the article. Khazar2 (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I added inline citations to "Background." I'll begin work on the rest of the article after I get a bite to eat, since it will be a bit tougher as some of the sources are just copies of each other, but I should be able to get enough different citations on different topics (such as the Codex). Thanks! --Activism1234 03:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
If some of the sources are just copies (all reprints of Associated P or something), it's probably best to just cite the same one multiple times. For notability purposes it only counts as a single source anyway. But sometimes different papers will print different parts of an AP story, editing it down themselves, and finding the full version can be tricky, so whatever works. Khazar2 (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I included them all in the lead, and only one in the main sections of the article, since I've seen some AfDs when people said an event wasn't notable, but then someone would show a list of sources of how it was printed across international news, etc... So I put it in the lead to show notability. I think two of the sources edited the AP source. --Activism1234 04:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
If the papers combined the AP source with other information, that may count, but otherwise the AP will only count as a single source for purposes of notability and AfDs. Generally any AP story that gets that much reprinting will also appear in other media, however. So you probably don't need to cite it multiple times, but it's up to you. I don't think anyone will really get on your case about it, either. Khazar2 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
OK. Also added some inline citations to all sections of the article. Hope it's better! --Activism1234 04:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The referencing looks better for sure. Nice work, and good luck with the nomination! Khazar2 (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

Thanks, nice to receive a compliment._ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. Khazar2 (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Perseids

Do you think ITN would accept a nomination of Perseids meteor shower?

Sources - 1, 2, 3, 4?

Or perhaps US, Turkey considering no fly zone on Syria?

Sources - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5?

I doubt it would go through b/c it hasn't happened yet and is just considering...

Thanks!

--Activism1234 05:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The no-fly, definitely not yet, due to WP:CRYSTAL--though you might integrate this info into one of the Syria Civil War articles for now. Harder to say with the Perseids. There doesn't appear to be a tradition of us writing individual articles on each year's shower, so you might be told just to merge it with the main Perseids article. For comparison, in the US, we switch to Daylight Savings Time each year, and there's always a flurry of news stories, but we rarely have a WP article on "Daylight Savings Time Switch 2012". On the other hand, if there's a lot of coverage about something unique happening this year with the Perseids, you might have a shot.
Sorry that's not more encouraging; it takes a while to get a sense of what makes a stand-alone article here sometimes. If you're actively looking for potential DYK topics (which I think is a great thing to do), this page and this page both have some redlinks I still haven't gotten around to which would be very likely to make notability. You might also ask at WP:Israel or WP:Terrorism if they have an open tasks list, since I know both are interests of yours; sometimes WikiProjects keep a sort of mass "To Do" list, often with redlinks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Argh, sorry, still stuck in DYK-land mentally. To answer your actual question, my guess is that both would be hard sells at ITN for similar reasons to the above. The Perseids are unlikely to be a top news story unless something is unusual this year. The No-Fly Zone is probably a no-go unless it officially happens. But you can always try and see, of course. Khazar2 (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
OK I'll look around at ITN to get a feeling of what's a good nomination. Don't worry about encouraging, critique is necessary in life. Perhaps I'll edit those pages you linked when I get a chance in about a week, very late at night here and I should already be sleeping, and have an important presentation I'm working on for this week. But thanks for the advice! I appreciate it. --Activism1234 06:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Cool--good luck on the presentation! I'm off to bed here too. Khazar2 (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Your assistance requested

Nice to meet you Khazar2, my name is Kurtis and I am an editor interested in topics relating to human rights. In case you're unfamiliar with me, I formerly edited under the username "Master&Expert" until being renamed several hours ago.

Anyways, several days ago I was speaking with Crisco 1492 (a link for your convenience), and he told me you're the go-to guy for human rights articles. I recently created and expanded the article Forced evictions in Baku from scratch, and have nominated it to be on DYK (nomination here). Both Poeticbent and Secretlondon commented that the article might be construed as being biased towards one side of the dispute. After reviewing the page, I came to agree with their sentiments and began revising the text so as not to give undue weight to the critics of the Aliyev regime. But right now, I'm lost as to what I should do next, and how I can further improve this article to the point where it could be considered a strong piece of content (ideally attaining featured status, unless that's a bit lofty for this point in time). I also requested a peer review for the article, but it has yet to receive a response.

Would you be willing to offer me some advice in how I can improve this article? Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! =) Kurtis (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It'd be my pleasure to help. The Mrs. and I have plans with friends for most of the day, but I can try a bit before my daughter wakes, some more before I go to sleep. I've actually written a bit on the Baku evictions already through some of the HR defenders that have run afoul of that situation. I'll take a look now, but don't be surprised if I disappear mid-edit for the day. I'll be back. =) Khazar2 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It's all right. I noticed you've made some formatting corrections already. Thank you so much for your help. =) Kurtis (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, gotta tap out for the day. Thanks so much for starting this article. I think it's fundamentally strong, and your research looks great. It's just going to be a question of tweaking for NPOV, as you say. Cheers! Khazar2 (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It's actually quite a bit tougher to maintain NPOV on something I'm passionate about than I had thought it would be. Nevertheless, it can be done. Pleased to have gotten help from you, and I really appreciate all the work you've put into making the article better. =) Kurtis (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep, Burma's always the one that gets me. Khazar2 (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that'll do it. Interestingly (to me at least), my bachelour's degree is in literature and yet I have no problem writing NPOV about literary works. Mind you, how I feel is a different matter (i.e. Siti Nurbaya and Belenggu were both dreadfully dull but have GAs, and yet we don't have an article on Keluarga Gerilya yet, which I thoroughly enjoyed. I think I focus more on the historically important works). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It's the same way for me, actually, on the rare occasions that I've ventured into literature editing. Maybe it's being used to hearing multiple aspects/angles on a work discussed in the classroom? Whereas when it's something like the imprisonment of Min Ko Naing, it's hard for me to accept emotionally that there even could be multiple POVs (though, of course, intellectually I know there are). Khazar2 (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I know I'm kind of strange for having done this, but I actually made a list of the 100 worst dictators of contemporary times (i.e. Post-WWI). Suharto ranked somewhere in the top 15 (but not the top 10). He was a nasty one. Kurtis (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Know a lot more on Mugabe than forced evictions in Baku. It's amazing that the amount of info on that article in regards to criticism about one of the worst human rights abusers is hardly anything, compared to the rest of the article. Granted, there is a lot of criticism in the "criticism" and "sanctions" section. But there's so much more info that is also important that could be added. --Activism1234 16:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
If you're worried about NPOV, I don't mind contributing to it. I have no bias against Azerbaijan or Baku, and don't know much about the subject (other than human rights in general which I care about), so it'd be good for me to to learn more about it. --Activism1234 15:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
More eyes always welcome--that's what Wikipedia's all about, after all. Cheers! Khazar2 (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added a number of useful references to the talk page, and expanded the section on Eurovision a bit. Got to go for now, hope to help out later! --Activism1234 15:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, under US law we're allowed to use bits and pieces of text (in quotes) under a fair use doctrine. The writer maintains his/her copyright, and we don't get our pants sued off. However, fair use is based in part on the amount used; if a quote includes 50% of a news article, then there is very little chance that a court would accept a claim of fair use. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean, but the article was much much longer than the 2 sentences I used from it, which I also reworded and trimmed down to be different, but based on, the source. --Activism1234 00:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Right now or earlier? Earlier there were about 1000 words of material from copyrighted sources (admittedly not part of the article, but still) in an article that wasn't even 1000 words long. Quotes may be useful for verifiability, but sometimes copyright trumps that. Even now (on my screen) the length of the page is more than half quotes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh I see. I suggest mentioning that to Kurtis, who created the article (I only added a bit of info about Eurovision, the 2 sentences I was referring to), although I'd be happy to help out with that when I get a chance. --Activism1234 01:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Poeticbent actually mentioned that on the DYK nomination page, and then I read up on Wikipedia's policy regarding the use of quotes. I'd intended to fix that up sometime in the near future, but it seems as though you guys beat me to the chase. Thanks for that. =) Kurtis (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Morsi vs Tantawi - for article?

I've been told that Arabic media is claiming that Morsi and Tantawi were fighting (not physically) before Morsi fired Tantawi (ITN). Apparently, Tantawi said he had evidence that the 5 August attack was perpetrated by terrorists from Gaza. Tantawi insisted that for this reason, the Egyptian-Gaza border (Rafah crossing) should be closed once and for all, as a threat to Egyptian national security. However, Morsi said that Palestinians would never accept closing the border (Morsi had made promises in the past to Hamas to open the crossing more and lift the Egyptian blockade on Gaza). However, Tantawi said that this decision is to be made by the military (SCAF), and Morsi said that he (Morsi) is rather the supreme commander of the military. Hours after this, the reports said, Tantawi and some other officials were quickly replaced, as a result of this.

Sources: [6], [7].

Is this reliable enough to be included (not as a fact, but attributed as "According to some Arabic media...) in the article on the attack, under Egyptian response?

Thanks.

--Activism1234 18:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly not familiar enough with those two Arabic outlets to say. If this becomes a significant view, some report of it will probably emerge in the English-language media, too. But if you want to include it now, sourced explicitly to those, that'd be fine with me, too. Or maybe bring it up on the Morsi or Tantawi talk pages and get a wider range of opinions? Khazar2 (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll go with the latter option, and check for the first option in the next few hours/days. Thanks. --Activism1234 23:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Self-immolations

Why does the self-immolation article contain so few notable political self-immolations, and only from 2011-present? I'm sure that there are plenty of political self-immolations from places like Vietnam in the 1900's, as opposed to just 2011-present. Thought it'd be best to bring into your attention as you'd likely know many of these. --Activism1234 05:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's one of those article that turns into an "example farm" because instead of anyone coming there to talk about self-immolation as a long term concept, they usually just add a line or two about whatever they're writing about--I just did the same. I'm not sure my re-org really even improved it that much, but at least it broke those one or two line mentions out from a more thoughful and detailed section. My guess is that I'll end up debating half those entries in a week (the unsourced ones). If we can find other good examples from previous history, I'm all for that, too. Khazar2 (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. Have a few other pages I'm working on right now, but if I get up to this one, I'll give it a whirl. Another interesting article you may be interested in is Human rights in Lebanon, which has a tag that it needs to be updated (I added some info last week on treatment of homosexuals/protests against "anal examinations"). --Activism1234 13:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been avoiding the "Human rights in..." articles, to be honest, because I haven't figured out what we're shooting for in them. Asking around at a few project boards, no one had a good example of what the final project should look like. It's complicated because it's such a huge topic--Human rights in France, for example, could be argued to cover more than a thousand years of history. But even shortening it to a specific timeframe (post-WWII on) still raises complicated questions in what human rights we list (e.g., is a law banning abortion a violation of human rights, or is a law permitting it a violation of human rights? Or is it POV to talk about abortion in the article at all?) and what sources we use (do we consider Amnesty and HRW the final word? Do we rely on things like US State Dept reports or Iranian state-owned media critiquing each other? etc.). At some point, WP Human Rights or another forum needs to have a long talk about how those articles should look so that they're not all the recentist "example farms" they tend to be now. I've grudgingly been admitting to myself that I'm a logical person to start that conversation, but haven't gotten around to it yet.
All that said, I'm glad you added the anal examination bit. I read about that somewhere previously and was horrified. If it turns out not to fit in the master human rights article, you can always shift it over to the more specialized LGBT rights in Lebanon. Khazar2 (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Good points, and such a discussion would be necessary indeed. My personal opinion is that the article shouldn't be from ancient history --> present, but rather either history in the past or current human rights in the present (and 2 seperate articles can exist). If a country committed outrageous human rights abuses throughout its history, and then in the 21st century modernized and became the #1 protector of human rights, I can see creating only one article as a bashing place for that country, by filling it up with mainly its history and leaving very little info on the fact it's #1 protector of human rights. I'd raise that though if such a discussion is opened. For now, I think I'll edit these articles based on whether it makes it into reliable media outlets, not just Amnesty and HRW, and whether it isn't controversial if it's human rights violation or not. But I understand your decision, and don't mind it. Thanks. --Activism1234 17:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Khazar2/Archive_3&oldid=1139321815"