Jump to content

User talk:Khazar2/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

This is really minor but...

I'm trying to work out this edit. I thought at first it was the US spelling of Brit English "proprietorial" but as far as I can tell US and British use the same spelling. Didn't want to revert because I suspect I'm missing something really obvious? DeCausa (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You're not. I just double-checked the dictionaries and you're entirely correct; this was a case of my trusting the spelling of AWB more than my own instincts, a mistake I won't make again in the near future (at least not without a thorough double-check). Thanks for your courtesy in bringing it to my attention, and I'm sorry for the dumb mistake. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
No, no prob - it's nothing. DeCausa (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back

Something for you to drink

I just peaked at your page and found out you were at the hospital. I hope you get well soon! It's good to see you around. ComputerJA (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm more or less better now though I'm totally backwards on my sleep--up all night, sleeping all day! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The Mrs and I went to Pangandaran for holiday after I taught in Ciamis, but she dropped her BlackBerry in the water when getting of a boat so she's been in a bad mood for the past few days. The sunset was nice, and I got a decent picture of a patrol boat too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Duino Elegies GA

Almost done through the list, only three more items to take care of. Will likely finish the initial list tomorrow (14FEB2013).--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I have completed the list. If there's anything that I might have missed/neglected, or if you see anything further that needs repair or revision, do let me know. Thanks again. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Reviewer Barnstar
Thank you for your excellent review of Mass Effect 2: Lair of the Shadow Broker, and especially for your helpful comments, suggestions and copy-edits, which significantly improved the article to GA status. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The pleasure is mine. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that review and barnstar - wonder if you could review another article of mine as part of your "review a day" project. igordebraga ≠ 14:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. And I'll keep an eye on that review, though I can't make any promises that I'll get to it soon; I've got a long mental list of others I plan to do first, time permitting. =) Seems like you're always submitting good stuff, though, so hopefully I'll have the chance to get to it. Thanks for all your contributions! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Christian Science GA

Hi Khazar, you put the GA on hold until the 17th, so I'm hoping we can start the review process again. Please let me know when you're ready to start reading and I'll hold off from making major edits while you do it. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'm not doing any serious editing today but it'll be on my list for tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good, many thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your GA review - and the barnstar. Collect (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure--glad to see this one so much improved! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for the review and the barnstar, Khazar. It's much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thanks for taking the time in-between real life to review another article! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure. Which one was that? -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, I'll just send it to you. The write-up I did is scheduled for publication in October or so, although in an Indonesian journal. Yeah, I know... theory. Mind you, my classmates loved my take on the Pancasila... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Inconsequential edits using AWB

The rules of use for AWB specifically prohibit inconsequential edits, such as replacing one dash with another. It looks like you're doing a lot of these - please reconsider. -- Scray (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Scray, I'm not sure what you mean. I may be looking at this wrong, but this edit doesn't appear to "replace one dash with another" as you say. Rather, it replaces a space with a dash to (properly) hyphenate a phrase that wasn't previously hyphenated. Can you clarify your concern? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
You're right - it was addition of a hyphen (the way the space removal displayed it looked like a hyphen was replaced) but I still consider these edits inconsequential. -- Scray (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Read WP:AWB. "An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit." This did have a "noticeable effect", albeit a small one, and exacted a grammatic change on the sentence. This is, as the page defines it, a consequential edit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Correcting a phrase that grammatically needs to be hyphenated isn't "inconsequential", and AWB regularly adds such fixes to its preset typo list. Grammar fixes, including hyphenation issues, are one of the most frequent uses of AWB, and have allowed the correction of millions of typos and other errors in Wikipedia. Each edit is small, but they add up. If your intention is to ban individual spell/grammar-check type edits using AWB, I suggest opening a thread at WP:AWB/T with your proposal; it's a much larger issue than you and I will be able to resolve on this talk page. Rather than individually warning users that you disapprove of their corrections, it'll be easier to change this policy at the source project.
I do want to note, though, that I strongly disagree with your contention that grammar corrections are "inconsequential." -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I hear you both. It's unfortunate, IMHO, to make such small, single edits to massive numbers of pages; if multiple edits were made to a page, I would consider that consequential, but just one clutters watchlists etc. I don't expect to convince you - I've said my piece. Thanks for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. -- Scray (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
You're entitled to have your own opinion about this, but if you intend to continue issue policy warnings on the subject, you should familiarize yourself with the policy first. (Or, as I suggested above, go to the appropriate forum to seek a change in that policy.) This policy is clearly defined on the page as well as by precedent; AWB has been used to correct hundreds of thousands of individual errors. You can find a better outlet for your personal opinion than these warnings--or at the very least, you might open in the future by acknowledging that your opinion is the opposite of policy, rather than pretending to be an enforcement of it. The fact that you didn't even double-check the diff before issuing your warning says all that needs to be said about the thought you put into this.
As a side note, how will individual misspellings ever be fixed if we set a minimum number of misspellings that need to corrected per page before it can be edited? Do you suggest noting these errors on the talk page, or some other forum, until the minimum threshold is reached and they can all be fixed at once? I really don't understand your logic in coming by my page to warn me against fixing "too many" spelling errors, but I hope you'll refrain from repeating it with others in the future; Wikipedia has enough negativity as it is. Sorry my improvements to Wikipedia cluttered your watchlist, and good luck in future editing, Khazar2 (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
My original comment to you was both civil and isolated, so I don't think you need to get too worked up about this. I am confident that my view is not "the opposite" of policy, so I see no need to disclaim. I acknowledged that I misread the diff, but I'll point out that it was a pretty innocent error - if you look at it, the strikethrough of a space looks very much like the strikethrough of a dash. In any event, I'll discuss at AWB/T before I raise a similar concern again - thanks for that suggestion. -- Scray (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Not double-checking the diff was one thing, not double-checking the policy was a second, and I understand that mistakes like that happen. But coming back to complain a third time anyway was when this moved into the ridiculous.
Anyway, I appreciate that you'll try to avoid similar issues in the future. Thanks for listening, and I'll look forward to working with you again when we bump into each other in better circumstances. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Khazar2. You have new messages at Talk:Military history of Asian Americans.
Message added 04:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Can you clarify what on the page you're wanting me to comment on? Thanks, Khazar2 (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

And you too!

All Around Amazing Barnstar
For your diligent and thorough review of Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors. Thank you! Hayden120 (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You're very welcome! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Burton Bridge (1322)‎

Thankyou for reviewing and copyediting this article so quickly! I agree with all the edits you made. Thanks also for the barnstar and your kind words, I appreciate all the effort you put into reviewing articles at WP:GAN - Dumelow (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Audie Murphy

Thank you for all your help. You've given me new insight into editing articles, and some valuable ideas of bringing this to FA. I have a healthy respect for the GA process now. — Maile (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome! This was a fun one to work on. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: straits tweak

"Strait" in singular is the correct form to use when referring to the Strait of Gibraltar but I made those changes in a rush and hadn't noticed one instance was within a quote, in which case it should remain as quoted. I've self reverted now. Thanks, but really the man behind this article is Prioryman, I've just helped with a few minor edits after he wrote it. For better or worse, my family (better) and work (worse) commitments considerably limit the time I have to spend on Wikipedia; so many Gib articles I want to write, such little time! I'll get there some day... Thank you for reviewing this article and helping it meet the GA criteria with your edits :) --Gibmetal 77talk 2 me 20:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! Thanks for getting back to me on that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

GA for Ely and Littleport riots of 1816

Thank you for your GA review of Talk:Ely and Littleport riots of 1816/GA2. Very much appreciated --Senra (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, it was a fun one to work on! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

More Audie Murphy editing

FYI. I'm finding documents through the National Archives, and expanding the military section. I don't know if you're watching the page. But if you see me do anything that takes it away from GA quality, let me know. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I do still have it on my watchlist, so I'll pop in to take a look every now and again. Glad to hear you're continuing to improve it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks very much with your help on Moorish Gibraltar, and the barnstar! You might be interested to know that the parent article, History of Gibraltar, is currently at FAC - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Gibraltar/archive1. If you have any comments on this you would be very welcome. Prioryman (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I generally make it a rule not to participate at FAC but I'll keep an eye on it with interest. Good luck! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Mount Jackson

Wow, that has to be a record for time nominated and time passed!! Thanks for the review and barnstar, you deserve about 20 of these!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, not often you see a same-afternoon turnaround at GAN! But this one was all ready to go, just needed the usual checks. And thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I did look for further information before nomming but I actually found less than is in the article, being an Antarctic mountain, like the Lake Burton, Antarctica article, not many sources, but short and sweet!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Wow!Thanks for the GA Barnstar. The GA clearance was really fast.--Nvvchar. 01:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
You're very welcome. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the GA barnstar; really appreciate it! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

GA reviews

Hey, buddy, how are you? I'm thinking of doing my first GA review next week during my SB vacation, and I wanted to know if you had any tips/suggestions besides the ones found here. Thanks! ComputerJA (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, that's great; I think you'll be really good at it. I was a little intimidated to start it, but it's actually pretty easy, and I've found it to be a lot of fun so far.
My biggest suggestion would be to stick close to the criteria in your review. (The essay WP:GACN is great for this.) Don't worry about dead links, overlinking, MOS issues, reference formats, adding more research (unless needed to meet a criterion), etc., unless you intend to fix most of that yourself. A lot of reviewers, even some very experienced ones, simply list the ways to improve the article without concern for the criteria, which isn't helpful for all nominators. If you have a good suggestion or see a problem beyond the criteria, you can add it, but explicitly note that it's out of the criteria and doesn't have to be done to pass the review.
I'd also say, don't be shy about copyediting the article yourself as you go and fixing minor problems. It's usually faster than listing them; I only put something on the review page when I genuinely can't fix it myself, or think the nominator might disagree.
The last suggestion I have is to go far, far out of your way to be friendly, especially with editors you're meeting for the first time. On rare occasions, Good Article reviews get contentious, which is a huge hassle for everyone, so it's better to be proactive about preventing that. Thank the editor several times for their work on the article (editors almost always deserve this anyway), emphasize that they've worked hard and progress is being made (assuming it's not a drive-by nomination), mention that you're glad someone's working on this topic, praise the article's good points, introduce problems in mild language ("It seems to me that..." "This should probably be..."), etc. It's hard for a review to get contentious after that point except with a very prickly user. If a user does complain about your review, just say that you're happy to get more opinions and invite them to renominate or go to WP:GAR for reassessment.
I hope this helps! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd

Hello! I realise after enthusiastically promoting this article to GA status that the mid-review renaming has turned out to be a problem - the review link on the talk page is a redlink, and the entry on the GA nomination page is a bit confused (it has a "start review" link, but says it's being reviewed by an Unknown user). I don't want to create more of a mess, so do you know what I/we/someone else should do to resolve this extant mess? By the way, congratulations on this article, and keep up the good work! You're both an excellent reviewer and an excellent writer. Take care, Moswento talky 10:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the helpful review and the kind words. I'm not sure how to clarify this either, but I'll ask at WT:GAN for someone more familiar with GA bot. Sorry for not thinking to hold off the move until after the review! Enjoy the day, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think I cleared this up--I moved the review at Talk:LPMR/GA1 to Talk:LMR/GA1. The link is blue now and it's gone from the WP:GAN list. Thanks again! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing up my errors at Interview with the Vampire. I hadn't slept in a while, and I was probably working a little faster than I should have been. Cheers! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 17:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! I may try to give that one a full review sometime soon--I read all those books way back in the day. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

AWB rev8853

There is a new version of AWB available at http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/ More than 50 bugs fixed since your version. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll update right now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Stanley Donen

Thank you once again for all your help. Hope I can return the favor.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure--particularly since it inspired me to rewatch Singin' and watch On the Town for the first time. -- Khazar2 (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Omar Derdour

Hi, can you review this? There is very little about him really and I feel it is about as good as it's going to get. Short but sweet I think.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be glad to. Right up my alley. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review. I think I've addressed the points. Yes, as I said, little can be found about him but it's not surprising.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice one, and keep up the reviewing!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can you do me a favour and withdraw Talk:The Jazz Singer/GA2, the writer has now rquested it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Sirs or Madame"

Love that. Can't get more neutral, I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

And yet still friendlier than "to whom it may concern". -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Khazar2

Hi I am one of the Abaarso Tech's class that Dan Hastings,my teacher, talk to you about earlier, and i want to edit the human right in Africa Wikipedia page. I need to find any specific topic to edit because the article seems really broad. I am wondering if you can help me with that. Do you think there is specific country page that i can edit or do you think that i can edit the main page? Maria Osman (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Maria, yes, I think a specific country page could definitely be a better choice. I think these exist for most countries, but if not, and you find enough sources, you can always create one. Human rights in Mali is definitely in need of an update after recent events--human rights there have been in the news a lot--but the best solution is just to pick a country you know a lot about, but can write even-handedly about. Good luck, and happy editing! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Rape victims

How do you feel writing about rape victims? Sum Kuning might interest you... her case was even made into a film, and the story is full of government corruption, further victimisation of the rape victim, people being above the law... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I just read some snippets on Google Books--that's a pretty wild story. I might have to try to tackle that one some time, at least a stub/start if nothing else, maybe once I'm through with Nelson Mandela (the next big GA goal). -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Yay on Mandela! I've got the page watchlisted, so I'll help with the Indonesian language sources (gonna hunker down and work on my school assignments first though) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Journey GAN

Hey I came here to tell you that I had finished everything for the Journey article, and got distracted, and then saw that you had already passed it to GA! Thanks so much, especially for your advice as to how to improve it. Keep up the good work! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
And for the barnstar too, of course. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Delay with Tracy Thorne-Begland

Hi Khazar2, I'm very sorry about the delay on reviewing this article - some things came up but I promise I will get to the article in good time. Hekerui (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's no problem. Please feel free to take your time, and I appreciate your taking this one for review. -- 18:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Khazar2, when I finished my review I thought I had found the proceedings cited in the article but quickly saw they were not buried in something else. After that I searched the website but could not find the document. Have you had any success? Hekerui (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The Long, Hot Summer

Hello, Khazar2. You have new messages at Talk:The Long, Hot Summer/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--GDuwenTell me! 14:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Interesting. To check the copyright status of some of those images you'll have to dig up an original trailer... they aren't all lacking copyright notices. Also, the rear of File:Orson Welles - The Long Hot Summer (1958).jpg should be uploaded to verify there is no notice... ebay doesn't have that available. On another nitpicky note, several of the short footnotes have broken links (10, 19, 27, 33, 34, and 44) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. So how do I verify this? Or should I simply recommend that the nominator add fair-use rationales instead? Thanks for taking a look at that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Khazar2. You have new messages at Talk:The Long, Hot Summer/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--GDuwenTell me! 15:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


  • When I looked on the online records of the U.S. Copyright office I found no listings for publicity or the trailer. No coyright markings are shown on it, because there is not need to. "To check the copyright status of some of those images you'll have to dig up an original trailer". I think that Crisco ment to say that you should check that the stills DO appear on the trailer since:

Under the 1976 Copyright Act, all works of art, including trailers, are copyrighted as soon as they are created. Since the U.S. joined the Berne Convention (a copyright treaty) in 1988, no formalities (such as copyright registration with the Copyright Office or a copyright notice) are required to maintain one's copyright. However, in order to be able to make use of the various remedies found in the U.S. Copyright Act, such as infringement damages, injunctive relief, etc., it is important to register your work with the Copyright Office and place a copyright notice with the date on it. Therefore, trailers after 1976 will be copyrighted and will require permission for usage from the copyright holder whether or not they have a copyright notice or are registered with the Copyright Office.

Most of the trailers prior to 1976 were created as new works, which contained new material (such as" Coming Soon" etc.) as well as scenes from the films they were advertising. The trailers did not contain copyright notices nor were they registered in the Copyright Office or the Library of Congress. Consequently, the new material at the very least went into the public domain. Many of these trailers also contained material that appeared to be from the movie but was actually shot directly for the trailer. That material, since it did not contain a copyright notice, would also fall into the public domain.

The major argument has been that the scenes from the film itself were protected by the copyright on the complete film. However, one could argue that once you cut a clip from a film, it is a separate entity and without a complete and separate copyright and notice, it too becomes public domain by its publication. Because of this, most studio contracts have required licensees of clip material to copyright their productions so as to maintain the studio's copyright in the clip.

Furthermore, trailers prior to 1960 offer an additional incentive, since under SAG rules, theatrical feature films prior to 1960 do not require residuals to be paid to actors, writer and directors when the entire film is broadcast. Consequently, writers and directors in clips and trailers do not have to be paid and actors do not have to be cleared or paid as long as the trailer clearly identifies the film on screen over the clip as it is played or it is identified verbally. This information is not contained in the SAG Code Book but can be obtained from a SAG representative via a telephone call.

Sounds good--thanks for following up. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • LOL. I'm sure Little Ms Khazar would love to read Sair Tjerita Siti Akbari, which I think is much more impressive (fiction trumps dictionary in my book, at least as a reader). Mind you, I'd love to read it as well. Alright, that's my mindless babble for the day... glad you're enjoying the GA reviewing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

E.E. Southard

Thank you for the kind review on Elmer Ernest Southard. I enjoy reading your GA reviews, as I'm a novice at it. Thanks again! EricEnfermero Howdy! 15:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! My experience is that GA reviews are quite a lot of fun to do--you get to read a lot of good content and work with some dedicated contributors. I've only been doing this a few months myself, but if you ever want a hand or a second opinion in doing a review yourself, just let me know. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Václav Havel Prize for Creative Dissent

Hi there, I just wanted to thank you for making the Havel Prize page, and all of the other good work you do on Wikipedia! You make awesome contributions, so I just wanted to shoot you some good vibes. Thanks, man! Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 21:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Some cookies!
Thank you! I appreciate both the vibes and the cookies... -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for correcting my poor English in Lower limbs venous ultrasonography. I appreciate. Doc Elisa ✉ 20:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help, but even more credit is due to the designers of AWB. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
designers credit can't blur the user credit... Doc Elisa ✉ 03:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Good article reviews

Hi, I'm going to be very cheeky here and if it's not appropriate, please just ignore me! I noticed you did a good article review for Robert of Cricklade, which I had reviewed for it's DYK nomination. I have recently nominated an article for GAN that I had extended quite a far bit from a stub, James Ferguson. It is also an historical type article and I wondered if you might possibly consider reviewing it? I do know a little bit about DYK but absolutely nothing at all about GA. If you're too busy or I shouldn't be asking, as I mentioned, just ignore me and I apologise profusely in advance. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not cheeky at all. I have a few that I'm hoping to get to first, but I'd be glad to take a look soon if nobody beats me to it. Thanks for your contributions to this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
On second thought, I'll go ahead and stake my claim. I should be able to start this review by Fri or Sat at the latest. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, that is brilliant and very much appreciated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Pfhuhasu lol

 Hello Khazar2, Eduemoni↑talk↓ has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 16:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

FAC for Duino Elegies

I nominated my work at Duino Elegies for FA. You had reviewed it for GA last month and promoted it on 15 February. If you could take a look at the FAC nomination and review it here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Duino Elegies/archive1, I would appreciate it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I tend to avoid FAC, but I'll look forward to seeing the outcome. Glad you're taking it this far--hope it makes it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Chinua Achebe ITN

I closed your nomination because it is a duplicate. I suggest you add your blurb to the other listing (nominated as RD only) so it will go up as a full listing. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

TTB

Hi Khazar2, I'm not sure how to proceed here and you didn't leave a note on what you expect, so here are my thoughts: the article is quite nice, it's good that changes were made (though I'm really baffled by your comment about how I should make minor changes myself - honestly, I was a little disappointed they were there in the first place because it seemed as though the article hadn't been thoroughly checked and I thought listing them would get that point across; I was not straightforward here because I didn't want to write "read the article again before nominating it", sorry).

I won't accept as GA an article with a dead link. If you think the citation of "Proceedings of Board of Inquiry, July 11-14, 1994" identifies the source unambiguously and the source can be accessed offline, then remove the hyperlink and we can accept the source like a book and I assume good faith that the info is correct because it is non-controversial bio stuff, or maybe contact the Standford Law people for clarification whether this is indeed in an archive or whether they have a digial copy we can cite. Once this is addressed I will look over the whole thing again.

I don't mean to be this negative, because I'm thankful for the work put into this, but I also wanted to mention that it is not necessary for you to pull out the GA criteria on whether a point I make is necessary for rating this article GA. I merely wanted to be thorough, users usually prefer a review that is more detailed to a shallow one, and I have prefaced that the points I make are mere suggestions that I want to hear responses to. Please assume good faith with me too. Thanks and best regards Hekerui (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Uh... I have no idea how to respond to this. I'm sorry that you took my responses as a critique. As I said there several times and will say again here, I'm very grateful for your review. I've incorporated almost every change that you proposed, I think, including archiving every citation in the article, and I think they've been a big help. I quite literally meant that if it was easier to make the changes directly, you should feel free to; as I said there, if it's easier for you to list them, that's fine with me too. I do apologize for not having noticed sooner that that wikilink was a redirect to the Democratic Party instead of a direct link. I try to avoid errors in my work, and do in fact re-read to avoid them, but they get past me nonetheless.
As for "pulling out the GA criteria", you can strike my mention of the GA criteria if it bothers you. You asked me for my responses, and that's honestly my response: the change doesn't seem to me necessary, either as a practical matter or as part of the GA criteria. It's okay for us to disagree on a few of these points. If it seems necessary to you, as I said, I'm totally fine with changing it. I didn't mean to be combative, and I'll change it right now in fact.
I especially have no idea where I might have come across as assuming you were reviewing "in bad faith", but wherever it was, I'm sorry for it. You're clearly a skilled and dedicated reviewer, you obviously don't have any malicious intentions, and I appreciate your having volunteered your time to improve this article. If there's anything I can do to help clear this up, I'd be glad to. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I guess this is an example of the internet effect, meaning that things can be perceived differently than intended when you only see text and I am happy to leave it at that. Hekerui (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Liao Dynasty/GA1

I've responded to your concerns at the GA review. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I've posted links to the other things. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Re: your last comment at the above linked page: Yep. Facepalm Facepalm. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Lol, no worries. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Gibanica

Hi! I saw you on the Gibanica article and I want you to ask for opinion about it. Does it need more information? It's very difficult to find more sources about this dish on the internet. Thanks! (Nightwolf87 (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC))

I wish I could help, but it's really hard for me to say--I haven't worked much on food articles and I don't know what form they should take. If you've covered most of the information from the sources you've found, it's probably enough to fulfill the "main aspects" criterion. But I can't tell you for sure. Good luck on this one, and with Serbia! And do let me know whenever there's a way I can help. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for your contribution in Mahmudur Rahman article. FreemesM (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Yum--thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Reorganizing the Human Trafficking article

Khazar2, my name is K.C. Ho and I am a student from Rice University. I take a course on poverty, gender, and development, and we have a project where we revise/add a wikipedia article. I chose to work on the human trafficking article. I have added some new sections, but the previous parts I had re-arranged but not integrated/edited heavily yet. I would really appreciate your help if you can go over the article and help me edit the sections, since the article is so long. Or if you can help me find others in the community to edit, that would be great too.

Thank you Kayceeho (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not canvassing, honest

But the old buga-boo is back on the Audie Murphy talk page. And instead of signing their post, because that person almost never signs, copied my signature and stuck it at the end of the post. And put coding in - you know, part of the ref thing - but wasn't referencing anything. They just happened to make the rest of the page invisible. Unfortunately, I don't think that was deliberate - we're dealing with someone who does not have the basic skills to be editing at WP. And they just won't stay away. I really believe Audie Murphy deserves this honor that this be brought up to FA. If it weren't for that, I would have walked away. This editor is a curse. — Maile (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, definitely not canvassing, since I've offered to stay involved in this situation. I'm not sure the best approach, though. Is the user still adding copyvio text and unsourced/wrongly-sourced material? That, in itself, might be grounds for a short-term ban. You might start documenting those instances as well as warnings about it on the article talk or user's talk pages; the next time one occurs, you could post to AN/I. I'm in charge of Little Miss Khazar for part of the day today, so will be off and on, but I'll try to pop in and post at Murphy's talk. Thanks for continuing to "ride herd" on this article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Unless you find something to add to the ANI, just help monitor the article. I was a bit stressed when I posted here, and it shows. — Maile (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
No worries! I've been having some Wikipedia moments like that this weekend, too. =) I'll be glad to try to lend a hand. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm

Don't think it's Wikipedia notable, but you might be interested in this: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Abuse of power, much? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is a crazy ugly incident. Who knows--if it gets some sustained investigation/coverage, might be worth an article... -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Kung Fu Hustle

Hi, I have re-nominated Kung Fu Hustle and met all the point in the last review. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, great! I'm going to let another editor review this time, to see if new eyes catch anything I missed. But I'm very glad to hear you're continuing to work on it--good luck! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

AWB 5.5 released

Hi Khazar2! I noticed you're using AWB SVN 8853. Just wanted to let you know that AWB version 5.5 has now been released, which has fixes through SVN 8979. Happy editing!

Thanks--will download in a moment. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Fatimid architecture

Helloelloello! I was wondering if you could review this one, bit longer than the other ones you reviewed but I feel it is adequate for a GA. It has been very well-researched. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It does look like a good one, thanks for your work on it! I should probably pass for now, though I might pick it up later; I try to avoid doing too many of any user's submissions in a row both to avoid appearance of partiality and to make sure everybody's work gets multiple eyes. If nobody's picked this one up in a few months, though, I'll be glad to review. It's definitely in my area of interest (if not expertise!). -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, OK, no worries!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Motion to close RFC/U

You have previously commented on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Niemti.

As an outside editor, I have moved that this RFC/U be closed. If you wish to comment on the Motion to close, please do so here. Fladrif (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks--already done. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hyphens

Thanks for all your corrections work. I disagree that the phrase "one hour interview" should be hyphened (or two, three, four hour anything). It is a clearly descriptive phrase in itself; There is no ambiguity, unlike 'part-time'. Hyphens should only be used to create compound words when they are combined to create a new compound meaning. See Oxford Usage. This is not the case in 'one-hour interview' or 'three-day trip'. You are making lots of great changes but I think you are over doing it with these alterations. Go gently. Best wishes Span (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I appreciate the comment, but I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're drawing. I tend to use newspapers as my guide for the application of rules like this (since there's a lot of searchable text), and both US and UK newspapers consistently hyphenate this phrase ([5], [6], [7]). A quick web search suggests that Oxford itself applies the rule the same way I do, so I'm not certain you're applying it the way they intend it (e.g., [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], etc.).
I do appreciate your checking in with me, though, and your courtesy about it. I'm always glad to have my work double-checked, given the number of dumb mistakes I tend to make on a weekly basis! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Your evidence is conclusive, though I don't understand the reason behind the usage, but then I don't understand most of the universe, so this should come as no surprise to me. Have a good weekend. Span (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, no matter how much I study it--and I literally have taught college-level courses devoted only to grammar, though it's not my specialty--little quirks continue to bewilder me as well. Thank goodness for Google. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Newsletter

I see you removed the newsletter. Although you did not specifically sign up for it, I included you in the distribution this month because you were credited for relevant article improvements in it. Would you like to continue receiving it in these circumstances or would you like to opt out of it next month?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 02:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to opt out, thanks. I do appreciate your sharing this issue with me, though-- cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Re:The Amazing Spider-Man

I have responded with you're reviews. :) Jhenderson 777 21:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks for getting to those so quick! I'll take a more detailed look tonight or tomorrow. Note that I added a concern about images to the review, too. Appreciate your work on all this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I want to know if the external image on the design section qualifies. Jhenderson 777 19:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you think the design section containing the external image is a better substitute? I am not a expert on the external image thing so I am hoping I didn't do anything wrong. Jhenderson 777 14:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for your review of Bockscar! Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Cheers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Bassem al-Tamimi

Hi,

Just a thank you for starting the Bassem al-Tamimi-article...however, please note that this article can become a WP:BLP-problem, as this edit shows. Hmmm, "known for = Land rights activism, 2011 arrest" becomes "known for = Promoting stone throwing and protests". Charming. I have warned the editor in question (who has a troubled wp-history), and told her I will seek sanctions against her if she repeats her "stunt". Cheers, Huldra (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitely problematic edits. I've opened a conversation on the talk page addressing some of the points. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Mandela and the general election

Hey there Khazar! I'm still in the process of fleshing out this section, I don't think I've made any mistakes thusfar, but its good to know that someone's keeping at eye on my edits! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've finished my edits for the day, if you want to go ahead and make any improvements to the text I have put up without fearing edit clashes. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion on source for GA

Hey Khazar! I'm reviewing Superman: Escape from Krypton for GA, but I disagree with the nominator about the reliability of one of the sources. My request at RSN went by without comment, so I'm wondering if I could ask for your help as an experienced GA reviewer? The source is the website The Coaster Guy (www.thecoasterguy.com), which pertains to footnote 1, 7, 18, 19 and 20. Is this a reliable source for the statements it supports? If you're able to offer a second opinion, that would be great. If not, no worries. Moswento talky 15:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad to--commented there. Thanks for reviewing it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Moswento talky 12:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

GAR and Barnstar!

Hi Khazar2. Just wanted to say a big thank-you for the review and the barnstar. That really is very generous of you! I pretend that barnstars mean nothing to me ... But of course they do! Cheers, and thanks again, JG66 (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Mine too! Thank you for both your patience and careful eye ... Now I have to get my current outstanding review done! Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, get to it! =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar. I think you deserve one too.
The Reviewer Barnstar
For you're helpful reviewing and editing on making articles (such as the The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film)) better. Jhenderson 777 18:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm a big movie nerd, so all these film articles have been quite fun to work on. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Australian lgas

hello, noticed you have correctly put hyphens in four-year; most articles need Councillor and Mayor decapped as well. I'm working through them slowly but help is always appreciated. Regards Crusoe8181 (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye peeled for that, though there may not be a good way to program AWB for it. Thanks for the suggestion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thorne-Begland

Hi Khazar2, I found the Palm Beach Post source dead last week and I thought you would replace it, but maybe it went dead shortly after your edits and you therefore didn't notice. As I said, I will only reassess this article if there are no dead links left. Regards Hekerui (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've responded in more detail there, but I wanted to reply here, too: dead links have nothing to do with Good Article status per the criteria and the explanatory essay for the criteria. You also might review WP:LINKROT and WP:DEADREF. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I think we're at a point where I write one thing on the review page, and you take my abbreviated note from your talk page to argue that I meant something else. I was not trying to be malicious and nowhere did I require things to be online. I will follow your wish and quit the review. Best of luck going forward. Hekerui (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
C'mon. "I will only reassess this article if there are no dead links left"? "I won't accept as GA an article with a dead link"? How did you expect that I was going to interpret these? -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

My first!

Thanks for your thanks!

I've made lots of corrections, most much more extensive than this.

John of Cromer in Philippines (talk) mytime= Fri 10:58, wikitime= 02:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, then, you're long overdue! Have you ever thought about becoming a GA reviewer? With your attention to detail, I suspect you'd be very good at it. Anyway, thanks for all you're doing! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Malian parliamentary election, 2013

the aticle needs an update, if youre willing. I beleive you are interested in the subhect?Lihaas (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitely an area of the interest, but I might wait till closer to or after the elections to try to write about it. Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking primarily about the background section. We need the rebellion (its origins with the civil war) and the coup, then the intervention. So theres some ground to cover.Lihaas (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you take a look at my FACs

My friend, User:DavidinNJ and I nominated Alcohol laws of New Jersey for Featured Article Status back in February. The nomination has been slow. As I esteem your opinions and work in the past, would it be possible for you to take a look at the article and perhaps consider offering support to its FA candidacy, located here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alcohol laws of New Jersey/archive1? I appreciate your time and attention to this cause.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your thinking to ask me, but I generally don't get involved at FAC due to its high drama quotient. I wish you both the best of luck with it, though! If you're involved, I've no doubt that it's a deserving article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Couples Discount

Thanks! I've fixed all the problems that you've pointed out. We'll probably walk the earth, confused and lost on what to do next :P. -- NoD'ohnuts (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

lol. Thanks for the quick responses, I'll take a look before the end of the day. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Khazar2/Archive_8&oldid=1144649268"