This is an archive of past discussions with User:Khazar2. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, user. If you do have a free time, can you help me update this 2011-2012 Jordanian protests article, especially the absent timeline since December 2011 towards September 2012? Thanks. I will be adding the yesterday anti-regime midnight protest.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Pussy Riot". Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
My pleasure--and thanks for starting that one! My big project right now is improving and sourcing Eleanor Roosevelt (which I'm slowly chipping away at), but I'm also trying to add to the articles of related people as I come across bits about them in various biographies. If you're ever interested in dropping by ER's page, I'd be glad to have any input you've got. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
You are fast :)
Thanks for the rapid "bare url" fixing on the "rapid fire" edits of 99.119.131.144. Just to let you know that ip has been blocked for block evasion. Details if you are interested. Vsmith (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been missin' ya. =) I'm actually impressed you've been on at all with all these papers you've been doing--you must not be getting a lot of sleep!
I've decided to go for my first Featured Article, btw, after noticing the questionable shape Eleanor Roosevelt was in--I figured if I was going to go to check out and read all the books I needed to source it up to a Good Article, I might as well take it the rest of the way. I still need to finish revisions and take it through GA first, but after that I might ask you to take a glance to let me know if anything's egregiously wrong before nominating.
I'll try. I'd send you the post-co paper I did on one of Armijn Pane's plays, but it's in Indonesian. Instead I'll send you a short story once I've translated it. About phallic busses... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I will support this nom strongly if we can get at least as much text on his notability as a poet as we have on the legal case. I suggest you try adding stuff about his notability before the arrest if that's possible. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I wish it were, but I doubt this is possible. Al-Ajami appears to be a literature student who got caught up in events, rather than a major public figure who intentionally waded into them. I appreciate your taking time to make the suggestion, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Asghar Khan
Dear Khazar2:
This is regarding use of word 'Honest Politician' for Mr. Asghar Khan. i am posting here a link to the news article for your convenience to consider it as citation
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=141736
This source appears to follow the prior version of the Wikipedia article rather closely. Are we sure we're not seeing our own words repeated back to us here? Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Media sources
Hello Khazar2, I have a question about media sources in South America.
I've been trying to do some research on a mumber of topics revolving around corruption but I'm having trouble distinguishing the "state" media sources and the free media. If I've compiled a list of sources, how can I find out if they are legitimate or not?
I have also been following the work of a few jounralists. My friends in Venezuela tell me that they are highly regarded, but I don't know if that will hold up in the English Wikipedia. Thank you for your time. Justiciero1811 (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
It's hard to say, and there's no firm answers. You can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard about any specific fact from any specific source. It's usually okay to use phrasing like "newspaper X alleged crime Y. Politician Z stated this was untrue" as long as Politician Z is a notable public figure.
If you want, you're always welcome to ask me for a second opinion on an addition to a specific article. I don't have all the answers or anything, but I can give you a second pair of eyes to look at it. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice, I will be sure to use it. I will likely need a second pair of eyes on a few sources in the near future. Thank you for the offer. Justiciero1811 (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I need to take you up on your offer as a second opinion on sources. I came across Primicias 24 and my connections in Venezuela tell me it's a goverment propaganda site... They think a lot of things are government propaganda sites... But I wanted your opinion. The advertisements are all from the government and the stories seem questionable, so I thought I should ask for a second opinion. Much thanks for any guidance you can give. Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
It depends on what fact you intend to add to what article. Even government-run sites are okay for some kinds of claims, or to say "Chinese state media said..." I'm not familiar with that specific source's reputation, however. Your best bet would be to leave a note at the reliable sources noticeboard so that someone more expert can give you an opinion. Thanks for your edits! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I have read your message and wikipidea´s guide about conflict of interest and I not agree. The link that I posted about Vuelta is relevant. The author worked several years on this subject (He met and had personal conversations with Mr. Paz, among other famous contributors of this magazine). Therefore, it is not a promotional link or an advertisement. (Or if is a little promotional is well deserved). The author has been praised by his work.
Please undo your edition, do not abuse about your status as editor.
Hi Chama, if there's information unique to this source that you feel you should be included in the article, you're welcome to suggest it on the article's talk page. But including the link for the purpose of promoting Jaime Perales Contreras is inappropriate. It's difficult to take your argument seriously, as your sole purpose on Wikipedia so far appears to have been to add these links to every possible article, ranging from Inception to Samuel Beckett. I strongly suggest that you start working to improve Wikipedia generally, rather than to promote Contreras. If her/his work is vital to understanding the subject, a neutral editor will add it. I'm not an expert on the subject, but the fact that no uninvolved editor has added this link suggests to me that you may be overstating your case. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Khazar2,
It is not an overstatement, the guy won a Fulbright and a British Council Scholarship for writing the book on Vuelta that is on dispute. He also was finalist on the " 2007 Comillas Award" on biography and History, based in Barcelona Spain for his book on Mr. Paz. His book about Vuelta is the only available source in English about the subject. You can check his records in google and see his work that is excellent. As I said, his worke has been praised by a Nobel Award Winner in Literatue. He published several interviews about Mr. Paz, Mr Mario Vargas Llosa, Mr. Guillermo Del Toro, among other huge celebrities. The guy is very good and very humble. His area of expertise is Latin American literature and politics and Contemporary Latin America Cinema. If you see his review on "Inception" he did an excellent comparative work between Inception and the Argentinean writer Jorge Luis Borges.
Again, if this book is vital to understanding Vuelta, an editor without your promotional intent will eventually add it. I left a note at the article's talk page to speed the process up. But it appears clear to me that your only purpose on Wikipedia is promote Contreras, which is inappropriate. You're welcome to contribute in other areas, but you need to cease on this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
SS Quanza
You'll find the info on the pages linked from the search page I gave you. Am aware that not all of the pages load properly, but enough of them should work to enable you to expand the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I took a quick look at the registers, but I'm going to have to do a bit of work with their key to make sure I'm translating properly. (I assume the length/width/etc. is in meters if this is in French, for example, but I want to confirm). I have a few other projects lined up for the afternoon, including tracking down a usable image of the ship, but hope to get to this in more detail tonight or tomorrow. Thanks again for the assist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Fate of Liberty book cover.jpg
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Fate of Liberty book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I've opened the review for this article, but have not yet posted any comments. I will do so as soon as I am able to, and hope to get the review done relatively quickly. Sorry if you've had to go through a long wait to get a reviewer. dci | TALK 20:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I see you've been doing some work on books that have won the Pulitzer for History - Thanks very much for this, it's something I had been meaning to look into but had not yet gotten around to. Keep up the the good work! KConWiki (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for the redirects, etc., on Jefferson and His Times. Mostly I've just done stubs so far, but hopefully I can come back later and expand some of these. I'm hoping to read several of them over the coming year, as it happens, so maybe this'll give me more motivation! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
WikiThanks Thank you for your recent edits/clean-up of the Greg LeMond article. I've been putting a lot of effort into it, but I really appreciate it when someone who knows something about cleaning up all the minutiae stops by and helps! In fact, if you can advise as to how we can automatically review the reference list for examples of the same reference being used over and over and entered long-hand, for example, and not done in accordance w/ whatever style manual there is...these are things I just don't know about and that we (both of us actively editing the page) could use more help with. But still, thanks! joepaT21:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome! I just use WP:AWB, which is a great tool for that purpose. User:Ohconfucius also has some good scripts on his page that help with dates and references, with instructions on how to install them. Almost nobody knows the whole manual of style, though, so don't ever sweat the small stuff too much. Thanks for your work on the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the MOS is an absolute monster. There's always something you've missed (and it's not even all held equal, some things are more important than others) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
That's very nice of you to say. I'm just lucky to be working with such a smart, knowledgable, reasonable and collegial bunch of editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dhondup Wangchen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese government (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Saw your note on CJA's page, as it happens, and was just about to write you back there.
FWIW (not much), I disagree with the reviewer's call on this. WP:ONEEVENT simply suggests integrating bios into events if there is already an article on the event, which in this case there isn't. Renaming the article "Disappearance of Zane Plemmons" (and giving it a bit of restructuring accordingly) should address the issue. As for WP:NOTNEWS, that guideline lists four discouraged categories, only one of which really applies here: "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." Again, easily fixable by simply renaming the article, and giving it a bit of restructuring to make it an "event" article instead of a bio.
It's probably not fair for me to jump in directly per WP:CANVASS, but feel free to draw on anything I've said here if the article is resubmitted. This article still might have an AfD ahead of it on WP:EVENT grounds, but it shows some evidence of sustained coverage, which should be sufficient to make it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate the advice on improvements, and you independently confirmed my thoughts about the objections. The "murdered journalists" category faces this objection constantly. Hey, nice article in the Signpost!!! Good work, Crtew (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Yeah, ONEEVENT is probably the most commonly misapplied principle on Wikipedia. Glad to see your students still hard at work on these--cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!
Much appreciated! And, by the way, I am unable to determine exactly where to place Dhondup Wangchen's name on the GA list. If you look at the sections available for TV, film, and cinema articles, you'll see what I mean; do you have any idea which section he belongs in? dci | TALK 23:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
So how do you like the process so far? A bit more relaxing than FAC and (surprisingly?) DYK. BTW, how do you feel about Lacan's psychology? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I like it a lot, actually. Very laid back so far; even the disagreements generally seem temperate. I think it helps that the main page isn't involved--the main page always seems to get people's blood boiling. I think I'm going to start trying to do a few reviews a week regardless of when I submit content there myself.
As for Lacan, I've only seen him in mangled application by grad students, never read him directly; can't say I have any fair opinions about him, but my indirect, unfair impression is that I'm not impressed. Seems like an overly rigorous schematic designed to launch 1,000 conference papers but without much real use. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Awesome, glad you are enjoying yourself. I haven't reviewed much recently myself (writing time has been cut back too) but it's generally a lot more relaxed than FAC reviewing.
As for Lacan... hopefully my prof doesn't think I mangled it too badly. I ended up analysing Kubah for my post-structuralism class and... well, the novel lends itself to the theory, although my conclusions were certainly not ones the writer would have liked. Launched a thousand conference papers is right, but I must say it felt easier to get ahold of than deconstruction — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely. In any case, I should warn you that as a former creative writing prof, it's pretty much job to pooh-pooh any lit theory you mention. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense ;) I've always wondered why people who are already established writers end up going to college and studying literature. Is it the prestige? I mean, one of my classmates has published 3 books already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
In the US, it's mostly just so you can get hired as a prof and make a living. There's probably only a few dozen people who can make a living on their fiction alone these days. I doubt my own total earnings over six years of active publishing totaled more than $5-7,000. But I made much more than that by using the publications to get more teaching jobs. Journalism probably has more money in it, but that's shrinking fast in the US too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Sorry to hear that one's edit-warring at such a frantic pace; feel free to undo, obviously. Thanks for your work in maintaining it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
No, thank you. It is important that the article be clean, and your efforts are greatly appreciated. When the US goes to sleep, run all the scripts you want! Drmies (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Assessment question
Hello, I've noticed that you have been doing some assessment work. I have been working on a mammal article, Fisher (animal) for awhile and am looking to get it assessed. I have been poking around but I haven't found an appropriate assessment page. Do you know where I should go for this request? Thanks, Atrian (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest putting it up as a good article. Giving it just a glance, it looks well-sourced and thorough. There's usually a 2- to 3-month wait, but that's going to be the case for most assessments. In the meantime, you can also ask at individual wikiprojects for reassessment from editors knowledgeable in the area, though unfortunately, few wikiprojects have enough volunteers to have the resources for this. Best of luck, and thanks for your efforts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I am the nominator of this article. I ask you to fail this nomination so that I can have more time to develop the article. I know it sounds strange but I think it is the best thing to do due to the many criterion the article fails in. Thanks for your time, QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. I think the article's actually very close in some respects, but having to track down those page numbers, or replacement sources, will be a big job. Thanks for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
If the page numbers you want are from the books by Thurston Clarke, Bethell, Silver or Segev, I can help. Out of interest, was there a reason why you changed the date format used? ← ZScarpia23:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey, that'd be great. As for the date format, the article appeared to be half one date format, and one the other, and I wanted to standardize it. I have no strong preference between them. Feel free to switch it the other way, or if you don't have the script, I'd be glad to do it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
With the date format, I´d just wondered whether there had been a policy change that I needed to be aware of. I don´t mind which format is used, though. I´m expecting that you´ll want to discuss some of the edits that I´ve just made in the article, particularly those to the Motive section. ← ZScarpia11:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I mostly came to the article as a reviewer, which was closed by QSL's request. My first glance over your changes, though, suggests that they look good. Thanks for your work on this one. I think it's close, and when those page numbers (or other citations) are there, you should definitely renominate as a GA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a preferred way of entering page numbers when sources are cited multiple times in an article? What I tend to do now is give the page number in a comment after any <ref name=XYZ/> tags. ← ZScarpia17:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. At the moment I'm 2000 miles away from home and my books, but I'll start extracting page numbers from the sources I have access to after I've returned, which will be the end of this month. ← ZScarpia13:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds terrific. I probably won't review it the second time around, just to get another pair of eyes on it. But I appreciate your work on it and wish you the best in getting it through GA! It seems very close. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Forgive me for asking you about this nom that I reviewed because I liked the topic, thinking of you. I also thought of the user who has in his edit notice "The only real nation is humanity". Thoughts here, team spirit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I took a look at that article at one point; it's a shame it got pulled from the queue, but I can understand the reasoning. It does overlap heavily with the main article human rights. And I agree wholeheartedly that BLP principles should apply to inter-editor interactions, btw. Signing up for WP Editor Retention right now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
My pleasure. I wasn't a fan of the first one, but reading the reviews of that one made me actually want to see it... might pick it up this weekend. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The first one is bizarrely non-ultimate action considering the cast. I wouldn't say this is going to win any awards but it's a bit more fun and the villains are a lot better. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
At least one editor in the Wikipedia Education Program identified you specifically as being a helpful editor! Thanks for being so welcoming to a newbie! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the CopyEditor's BarnStar ! I appreciate your noticing. You said: "This'll give you something to put on that redlinked user page, if you like." What is a redlinked user page ? I often find the Wiki usage protocol rather confusing... Is there a specific place to look up what I don't understand ? Kgrad (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your work. A red link is what displays when a Wikipedia article (or in this case, a userpage), doesn't exist yet. A lot of users keep their barnstars on their user page, but it's by no means required. Yours is at User:Kgrad if you ever want to put something there. It's not at all required, but it's a fun way to keep in touch with other users, and get a sense of who's who.
As far as finding answers, the best suggestion I can give you is to ask other users or the Wikipedia:Help desk; Wikipedia has so many misc. terms and policies that looking them up can be very time-consuming. You're welcome to ask me questions here any time you like--I'm often on for half the day, and happy to chat. If I can't answer your question, I can usually at least direct you to somebody smarter who can. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
USchick has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
I think I agree with the editor who did it, actually. While that award was a useful addition to most articles, Krugman's got enough awards that he doesn't need it noted on his page. In any case, I was just templating that citation and copyediting, not inserting it myself. Thanks for letting me know, though, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey
Merry Christmas
Hey Khazar, hope you feel better over the holidays. Merry Christmas for you, the Mrs, and little miss Khazar! (Gift to follow) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, and happy holidays to both of you! I'll probably still be on fidgeting with AWB to give myself something to do, but I'm going to take a break from more complicated editing for a while. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Definitely sounds like a plan. I'll be bogged down in school work... for some reason, I never seem to write about works we already have articles on. Post-colonialism and a short story by Zuber Usman... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of journalists killed in the United States until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
Khazar2, Somebody nominated this list for deletion. You may be interested since it's in your area of interest. Crtew (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Khazar. I'm sorry to see that you're having health problems. I hope you get better soon. Merry Xmas and Happy New Year! INeverCry19:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I hope you get well soon! I wasn't feeling too good in the past couple of days either (probably from my messed up sleeping schedule, who knows), but spending time with family is always good medicine. Enjoy the holiday and get well soon, friend. ComputerJA (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
It seemed to me worth leaving in case someone is able to add in a specific date later; if it bothers you, you're welcome to remove it, however. Thanks for bringing your concerns to my attention in either case. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I found your review rather embarrasing. You left it and suddenly came back to conclude your fail. Your review was rather biased as book summaries don't need to be described in the biography. You opined too frequently instead of reviewing against our GA criterions. I find the outcome ridiculous, especially when you stated there should be plot summary sections, but in the peer review I was told they should be removed. --Tomcat(7)19:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Great. It seems like your only objection is that the article does not discuss the books, even though the main article should not do that. --Tomcat(7)11:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that the main article shouldn't discuss an author's major books, and you're forgetting the excessive length and detail, which I've mentioned in every forum you've pursued this in. (To put this another way, if you have time to describe what Poor Folk and The Double are in detail, you have time to mention Crime and Punishment, one of the world's most famous novels.)
At this point, though, I'm the wrong person to continue pursuing this with. I would have initially pointed you to good article reassessment per WP:GNGA for a second opinion, but it looks like my concerns were shared by your fifth reviewer as well. My suggestion would be to read WP:PAGESIZE and start to take the policies there, and the concerns of multiple reviewers from your GA reviews and peer review, more seriously. I wish you all the best with it! Thanks again for your work. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd love to get this to FA... probably the most important Indonesian film of the 80s (for its propaganda value, naturally). So, white Christmas over there? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it's been more of a global warming Christmas in my state so far. But I've been bedbound and out of it--a nasty combination of fibromyalgia and a sinus infection--so there could be a foot of snow out there and I'd have no idea. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
She wasn't too impressed with her gifts--between us and the grandparents, new toys show up for her all time year-round--but she thought wrapping paper was the best thing ever invented. I have a whole drawer full of it left so I can keep giving her a piece a day to chew on and tear up. =) Did you have a good one? Do graduate schools in Indonesia give you a Christmas-time break? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Good, those two are crucial. Throw in Charlie Brown Christmas and you've got the usual Khazar family rotation too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure. I fixed the wls on it. But in the future you don't need to cite me; you're welcome to add this text on your own accord. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I realize that you're frustrated with hunting this sockmaster, but I don't understand the needlessly hostile tone that you keep taking on this talk page. You previously posted here with a title which stated I was an accomplice to block evasion [1], then deleted it as "already reported" without waiting for me to respond. The above comment reads as rather sarcastically as well. Please understand that like you, I'm a good-faith user working to improve this encyclopedia. Anyway, thanks for your efforts in policing this IP. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
You did a wonderful job on that article, but thanks for the feast for the minor edits I made. I don't think the user template was intended to point to User:The Transhumanist, simply to give Transhumanist credit for the design. Now that I see that the template no longer appears on Transhumanist's page, I'll have to look for another one. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Mesconsing (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Romanticism GA review
Thanks for letting me know you're doing the review. I personally didn't do any work on the article, but I looked at it and figured it was quite possibly worthy of GA status. Even if you fail it, I'm sure it'll be improved, and I might do some work on it if I can find the sources to do so, as it is quite an important topic in the literary world! demize(t · c)22:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it's a great topic for us to be working on. Even if I don't end up passing the present version, I might try to start contributing myself and renominate for another reviewer later; I feel like it's close in most respects, just needs some tweaks for neutrality and clearer sourcing. Whatever the outcome, thanks for putting it up for review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
16912 Rhiannon has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Thanks so much for your help with the Kate White article!
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Thanks for the review! I'll get the lead fixed as soon as possible; if you have any other comments or concerns, don't hesitate to post them! dci | TALK 23:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
My pleasure, it's a great article. I think the lead's pretty much the only thing that needs attention, but I'll take another look soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks you for your excellent good article review of John Wilson (Puritan). I appreciate the comments, particularly in regards to close paraphrasing, as this can be very insidious. Also, thanks for the efficiency with which you reviewed the article, and for the unexpected barnstar!Sarnold17 (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed in your review of Dostoyevsky that you were checking word count in MS Word. Unless you have a thing about scripts, you could add importScript('User:Dr pda/prosesize.js'); to your Special:MyPage/common.js, and it'll give you a "Page size" link to click on under "Toolbox" on the left-hand side of the page. This generates a detailed word count of the current page, minus tables, lists and references. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs15:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I downloaded that script about halfway through that very lengthy review. And now, of course, I use it all the time! Should have just installed this thing years ago. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Goodman Beaver
Thanks a lot for another review! Doesn't bother me in the least to have you doing two. I've had a bunch of articles awaiting review for a long time, and all of a sudden three of them were done (two by you) during the winter break.
Oh, and my range of interests doesn't normally stray far from comics on Wikipedia. You just happened to come across one of my non-comics articles with Laura Secord, which I decided to do when I found out (shock! shock!) that she never made chocolate. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs15:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Wow, you're getting a lot of recognition for your reviews. As a side note, Curly Turkey not doing a comics article? (shock! shock!)... well, who am I to judge? I did twoFAs that weren't about Indonesia, although one was with someone else. Oh, and an FL... now who was that with again? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Your Frank's Cock article is my favorite "departure" of yours yet (aside, of course, from the CPJ awards). As for recognition, I'd love to say that's because my reviews are so great, but it's as much quantity as quality; I'm on my 30th or so review in the past 20 days, so somebody's bound to like them. It's a good outlet for when I'm a bit too out of it to research and assemble new articles, but can still copyedit and evaluate; also quite a lot of fun to read what skilled Wikipedians have been producing lately! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hoolboom's got a bit of notable work, I'm sure I could squeeze another DYK out of it if I feel nationalistic again. Sounds like fun, and GA reviewing is a lot less stressful than FA-level stuff. The dramahz that go on there... and infoboxes. I hate how they squabble about infoboxes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I was reading some FA reviews the other day when I was considering nominating Eleanor Roosevelt or Pussy Riot. I was quite put off by the standard they expected, and the tone with which it was delivered. I've published a book through a peer-reviewed press, and dozens of stories and articles in national magazines and journals, but I've never gone through a review like what they do there. GA, on the other hand, mostly seems pretty chill; editors work hard to improve articles, but if a comma fails to accord with MOS subsection 3.7.432a, it's not the End of Wikipedia as We Know It. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
In that case I should be ready and rarin' for submitting my stuff (to journals, I mean). BTW, I keep meaning to translate one of the short stories I've written but haven't done it yet... I'll try getting to that tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. I appreciate your comments as well as your review of the article - it clearly improved as a result.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
That was the thing that surprised me; an IP removed the good article listing and I wasn't personally contacted about the needing of the updates but also the review page wasn't even listed on talk page for anyone to even get a hold of it. Though one year ago, I was dealing with a lot of things with my university but also with my fraternity so my time on Wikipedia slowed to a crawl. I do plan on seeing what I can find for updates on the economy, but there isn't a lot that I have found. Anyways, I have expanded the lead and I will work on those claim statements you talked about. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)02:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't sweat the economy part too much; the IP provided no sources in that "reassessment", and did it without consulting any other users, so I'm not taking it into account. Thanks for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
All I got to say is wow, you are good. I am going to tackle a lot of stuff in the next few days and I have addressed some of your comments. I noticed a lot of early sources for when the article was made in 2005/06 have gone 404, so I am going to replace those and also better the sources I got. I got some people back at my university who owe me favors, so I will see also what I can find in JSTOR. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)23:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Ha, thanks! I appreciate your patience with my long list of comments. I also have access to a few things like JSTOR, Highbeam, etc., so could look articles up for you if it's any help--just let me know. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I reverted my change, I misunderstood what you meant in your edit summary. the links are already in the body. All good, sorry for the confusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I can see how my edit summary was ambiguous--which bugs me, because I've used that edit summary 100 times! Time to stop using that auto fill-in =). Thanks for the quick response. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Khazar2. You have new messages at Talk:Marguerite LeHand/GA1. Message added 17:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
