This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

	A mouse for you!
	I noticed that Crisco gave you a cat... But every kitty needs some food. So here's a little mousy for your kitty. Activism 1234 00:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Much obliged! Khazar2 ( talk) 01:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Konrad Tempel Hello Khasar, a German friend of mine and I have worked for weeks to better the NP article critized as "advertisement". We are now ready to insert it. I have seen that you have worked on it as atif haamed. Please have a look at our contribution, when you can see it. If you wish to contact us by email: (redacted) (for me this is the best way, for I am not acquainted with user's side's talks because of age (80) and lack of scillness / experience. I inform as well the user, who has worked on this article before you. Konrad Tempel Sept 5, -- Konrad Tempel ( talk) 15:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you give the title of the article? I'm sorry to say I'm not sure what you mean. I'll duplicate this message through your user e-mail as well. Best, Khazar2 ( talk) 15:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you mean at Nonviolent Peaceforce. I'll comment there. Khazar2 ( talk) 16:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you're acting in good faith- I have a fair amount of respect for you as an editor- but shouldn't you seek consensus first? You've been deleting huge blocks off the page, and there's no consensus to do this on the talk page. I look at the edit summaries and some of the differences, and I think sometimes it was justified (true, redundancy isn't necessary, for example), but in other cases it was more questionable. For example, the removal of the info on the Ganda Koy and Ganda Iso militias. You're right, there is over-reliance on the Jamestown Foundation in this case (which sadly is offline right now). But is that really justification to remove it entirely, rather than seeking other sources to confirm and improve it with? That's just one example. I feel like, although its in good faith, the result is that we are losing a fair amount of potentially important information in various areas of the page. -- Yalens ( talk) 02:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have been doing my best to keep the talk page updated of my plans, and said that I'm fine with people reverting me wherever necessary. So of course you're welcome to do so, and then we can discuss on the talk page per WP:BRD. I've felt the article's been an obvious mess for some time, with problems ranging from incoherent bits of prose to instantly outdated speculation on troop movements to lengthy quotations from trivial interviews; several editors have commented the same. I don't mean to pretend that my own clean-up is perfect, but since this isn't a particularly controversial article, I thought a bold effort at cleaning the Augean stables would give us a starting point for discussion.

Well, it is true that there's little activity on the page. It's a pretty obscure region (hence the saying, "you don't have to go to Timbuktu to learn about x").-- Yalens ( talk) 15:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

In the case of the Jamestown Foundation, it struck me as rather undue to have a 3-4 paragraph section on the work of a single academic publishing through a private think-tank, especially one that appears to be offline at the moment. Has the JF's work been a major part of the story in other media or scholarly sources? I'm not necessarily doubting the information, but in an article that necessarily involves picking and choosing data, I didn't see any reason to privilege this author's work over the rest. Again, though, please feel free to restore it if you feel I've removed it too hastily, and I'm glad to discuss on the talk page. In fact, I'd very much appreciate the double-check and the second pair of eyes; I feel like we've let this article sit unchecked for too long. Khazar2 ( talk) 04:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I'll look over it when I get a moment.

As for the Jamestown... I thought it was necessary to show info on Ganda Koy and Ganda Iso, and Jamestown was the only major source I found (admittedly, I could've looked harder). It wasn't so much that I want Jamestown on, but rather I think the information should be there. Though I suppose it could be abbreviated and it isn't necessary to tell the whole history, I guess. -- Yalens ( talk) 15:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have objection to that information in itself, but if it didn't substantially appear in any media or peer-reviewed scholarly sources, it would definitely be undue weight to give it a full section in the overview article.
But the 1 September Douentza smackdown did lead to minor international coverage of the Ganda Iso. Perhaps the best solution here would be to research the group a bit more, and if just a few more substantive sources can be found, you could create a Ganda Iso article that we could link from the main article? Khazar2 ( talk) 18:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan. Mind if I bring back teh Jamestown info (the sites now back by the way) for the Ganda Iso article, in addition to whatever else we may find?-- Yalens ( talk) 14:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say definitely use it. I think it's fine as a source in itself, but just happened to be getting undue weight in the overview article. Khazar2 ( talk) 14:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I noticed several edits in a short time so apologies if my saved work has caused you edit conflicts. I have no problem with my contributions being overriden; the only important factor is that in the 1999 period, the sovereign state in question was FR Yugoslavia even if many sources used the Serbia micronym. Apart from that, I did some biographical clean-up and that was all. Cheers. Evlekis (Евлекис) ( argue) 21:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem--just wanted to let you know I wasn't reverting you because I disagreed. Thanks, Khazar2 ( talk) 21:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

All done! No changes to your work, only restoration of my minor fixes. Thanks Khazar. Evlekis (Евлекис) ( argue) 22:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

my dear friend, im an aurthrized person to work on Ebrahim Sharif page on Wikipedia [1] , and you undo important update on his page, can you pleas let us work on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaadBH ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I invite you to revert the deletion of this "amendment" based on recent comments there. It is difficult to assert consensus for a change when the opposes outnumber the supports by 3 to 1. If not I'll be happy to refer this to an admin closure since it now seems clear-cut to me. Crispmuncher ( talk) 21:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC).

That strikes me as some rather creative counting; you appear to simply be reading the bolded text instead of the number of people in the thread that said they would support such a change. In any case, though, it's Kevin McE you need to talk to at this point; I haven't touched it since you reverted me. Khazar2 ( talk) 22:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, read your comments there, and understand your position better. I'm surprised that you think the autoarchiving that resulted from your request for more time means that every else's comments should be discarded--I've never seen a precedent for that. I'm fine with you calling for an admin to review the thread, though. Khazar2 ( talk) 23:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Falling Man, Ernest Trova, 1969.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 03:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. Glad to have the PEN awards mostly listed, categorized and back-linked (though there are tons more PEN centres around the world not listed anywhere on Wikipedia). Biggest challenge is sourcing to secondary notable sources to prevent deletions like this and this. PEN awards don't get the press exposure unfortunately like the bigger lit awards. Regards. Green Cardamom ( talk) 02:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw those deletion noms. I write about awards often, too, and it's tough to find extensive secondary coverage, even though the organizations themselves are often so notable. But thanks again for what you're doing. Improving the articles on the PEN/Barbara Goldsmith list is definitely on my long-term "to do", once I finish fleshing out the CPJ International Press Freedom Award and the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize winners. Khazar2 ( talk) 02:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

great job on that. Decora ( talk) 00:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It was a pleasure writing it. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand removing those 2 other categories, but I don't understand how the category "prisoner of conscience" wouldn't apply. Can you explain? Thanks. -- Activism 1234 22:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

They're not categories, just "See Also" entries. In this case, prisoner of conscience was already linked in the article text; per WP:SEEALSO, that's discouraged as redundancy. Khazar2 ( talk) 00:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Got it, didn't realize. Thanks! -- Activism 1234 01:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Np. Khazar2 ( talk) 02:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

On 15 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yusak Pakage, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Yusak Pakage was sentenced to ten years in prison after raising a flag? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yusak Pakage. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd ^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

We got good weather. Hope you'll make it downtown for all the action! Marcus Qwertyus ( talk) 08:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It'll still just be Fitz's for me, but baby permitting, I'll see you there. How will I identify y'all? Khazar2 ( talk) 11:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

We should be there around 5:45.-- BirgitteSB 21:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

On 16 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jesús Blancornelas, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that, Jesús Blancornelas, a Mexican journalist, risked his life while reporting on the Tijuana Cartel, the drug trade in Mexico, and political corruption? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jesús Blancornelas. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Hey there, Khazar. I was thinking of nominating Jesús Blancornelas's article as a good article. What do you think? I think it's in good shape, but I wanted to have your input before making any moves. Thanks! ComputerJA ( talk) 17:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it's in very good shape--thorough and well-referenced. I'll let you take the lead on that, but I'll keep watching and pitching in where I can. Cheers, Khazar2 ( talk) 17:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. I don't know how to add you as a contributor in the article's expansion. If possible, please add yourself. Good day. :) ComputerJA ( talk) 17:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Khazar2, thanks again for reviewing my draft of Nina Easton's article. I've reached out at WikiProject Biography and at Paid Editor Help, but unfortunately haven't found any other editors to review. Given the lack of response and your approval would you mind moving this draft live? I'll understand if you think I should get some more feedback; if so, any thoughts on other editors who might be interested? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 16:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Khazar2 ( talk) 12:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot ( talk) 05:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Khazar2 ( talk) 12:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested in this. I've noticed you were active on the article's history - which I pretty much figured before looking at the history!

-- Activism 1234 05:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; I'm still mostly staying out of ITN debates for now, though. And honestly, though those pictures of ASSK and Obama are great to see (I even have them in my Facebook feed), the standard ITN five sentences may be a little excessive here; ASSK has a hefty drawer of medals already. Glad to see you're still active with the nomming, though! Khazar2 ( talk) 12:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comments at this discussion. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Khazar2, There are some people who want to create a reference note about the name change Jimbo Wales made to Tawakkol Karman in her article. It seems to me that it's more an act of referencing to make a statement about Wales than to add to our knowledge about Karman. There is one article from CNBC out about what Wales did yesterday. Would you take a look at the references that they want to add? I think it's circular and unnecessary. Do you think the reference should stand or not? It's not a great matter of urgency or anything but if you would tell me your opinion, I'd go with your advice. Thanks, Crtew ( talk) 22:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting case--I glanced over it and agree with you that it's maybe gratuitous if this variant spelling is given elsewhere anyway. If other editors need it to stand as a precedent, perhaps they could move a copy of the diff to an essay? But honestly I don't have a strong opinion either way. Enjoy the day! Khazar2 ( talk) 23:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm I Jethrobot. Khazar2, thanks for creating Sky FM!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. You might want to see if you can find other places on Wikipedia to link Sky FM, like a list of radio stations in Liberia, for instance.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

• Really? You're like, nowhere near a new editor. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 06:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, surprised me too. At first I figured it was just a bot, but turns out to be a user pretending to be a bot. But quite right that that stub needed to be de-orphaned in any case. Khazar2 ( talk) 12:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, want to nominate Battle of Gao for GA status? I cant add as ive got one pendning, and would probs need someone to make necessary chnges too Lihaas ( talk) 11:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Nah, thanks, but I think I'm going to pass. I'm trying to stay focused these days on more raw content generation than "promotion". I also think that article might still need a lot of work. There was never full consensus on its talk page about where/how it should be integrated with the rest of our Malian insurgency content or even the scope of the article itself. I won't object if you want to go for it, though. Khazar2 ( talk) 12:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Khazar2, Please read the Sanjay Pugalia entry in light of it most recent changes, which includes a notability statement, better organization, further citation, and new material. Currently, its assessment is stub. The most recent changes should merit a reconsideration of a nomination to delete and possibly a raise in status from stub to start. I would be interested in your thoughts. Thank you, Crtew ( talk) 05:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Khazar2 ( talk) 12:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Khazar2, I actually saw the deletion notice for him on your talk page when I was writing to you about Karman, and so you're indirectly responsible for the nudge!!! Thank you as always Crtew ( talk) 14:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

Khazar, I am new to editing on Wikipedia and not sure how to respond to your message regarding self-interest, which I understand. Yes, I inserted references to my own books, but that was because they are widely recognized as authoritative by experts in the fields concerned. I intend later on to make extensive edits to the articles on Makerere University (that one is rife with error) and Ngugi wa Thiong'o. By inserting reference to my books, I am enabling other readers to access widely cited sources. Carol Sicherman ( talk) 22:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! You can find detailed guidance on this issue at WP:COI and WP:NPOV (particularly the former). Generally it's better not to insert references to your own work in Wikipedia, which has an unfortunate self-promotional appearance regardless of actual intent. Wikipedia usually doesn't serve as a content directory, so listing your book in order to direct more readers to it is not necessary here.

Your help in correcting errors, on the other hand, would be an enormous boon. Given your conflict of interest, my suggestion would be to draft your proposed changes in your "sandbox" or on the article's talk page; an uninvolved editor from the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard could then take a look. Just let me know if you have any further questions. Khazar2 ( talk) 00:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You're from an academic background, what do you think of pop culture studies? I'm planning on doing a paper on Lilis Suryani's 1965 song " Gang Kelinci" and was hoping to get it published somewhere. It's a look at the song in relation to Sukarno's Guided Democracy politics. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a fan, and you definitely should pursue it (sounds like a good topic, too). My experience in the US was that getting peer-reviewed papers (and even books) published was surprisingly easy compared to fiction publishing. With the latter, even small markets only take about 1%, whereas some academic journals take as many as 40% of the papers they receive. Even if you get rejected, you're likely to get some good feedback and can try again with a second journal.

One of the MLA databases, I think Bibliography, gives acceptance rates for different journals if you have access to it through your library. Be warned, though, it's usually a seriously bruising process! The anonymity means that even reviewers who approve of your work generally will take the chance to take some caustic shots at you. Feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions I can help with, though I'm not sure how much my US academia knowledge translates to other countries' journals. Good luck! Khazar2 ( talk) 15:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'll finish it first and get it sent to you (as a side note, it's sad that they are both red links...). The paper is for a course, but I'd really like to start getting published as I plan to go to academia after my master's. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 15:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, I'd be happy to take a look. Definitely smart to get an early jump on trying to publish. A professor once told me to send out every single paper I wrote if I wanted to have a chance--not that they would all get published, but just to make sure that at least some of them did. I didn't quite meet that mark, but when I hit the job market, I was still glad I half-took her advice. Khazar2 ( talk) 17:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• I should have probably started during my bachelour's. I had one that might have been good, an Islam-based psychoanalysis of Buyung in Harimau! Harimau!. It just had to be trimmed majorly, for size. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 19:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Never too late; you could still dust it off. Khazar2 ( talk) 19:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Problem is, most of my material from the sixth and seventh semester was lost in an unfortunate harddrive accident. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 19:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Ha, ouch. That is unfortunate. Khazar2 ( talk) 19:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• You've got mail. Not exactly literature, but a fun bit of research anyways. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 19:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. Kevlar ( talk) 03:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm more of a general typo fixer. (Did you spam-template all of the 168?) Cheers, Khazar2 ( talk) 11:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I never got around to helping out at Leyla Yunus. I was pretty busy with other real-world events (seeing relatives, getting a bunch of things organized, etc). I might edit that article in the near future, but I also have other projects that I've been looking at to help improve Wikipedia. If ever you want to collaborate on something again, ping me. Hopefully I'll be around. =) Kurtis ( talk) 08:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries! I'll definitely ping you next time I spot a potentially good collaboration. Cheers, Khazar2 ( talk) 11:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I've started a talk page discussion at File talk:Ohn Than.jpg and your further input would be appreciated as you clearly are more familiar with the particulars of the situation than I am. VernoWhitney ( talk) 01:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Responded there, thanks. Khazar2 ( talk) 13:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

For a more detailed explanation of the page move of this article, it's because I've created this article and the two should be distinguished. This stuff is getting more frequent, unfortunately.

Hope it helps. -- Jethro B 00:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for continuing to work on this one. Khazar2 ( talk) 00:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Special Barnstar

Thanks for what you will do for the WikiAfrica project! Please notify me of your hard work: I will mention your username in the case study about the pictures you will work on. Also, should you know any Wikimedians interested in African contents, let them know about our call, we could use a hand :) PS. Congrats for the Questia account too, I have one myself :) Elitre ( talk) 19:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep you posted. Khazar2 ( talk) 19:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. Yes, I understand that pics with no context are hard to deal with. On the other hand, I thought it would have been silly to exclude those contents simply on the basis that the donor could not provide more info. Actually, IMHO no description is better than wrong description, and I think you might be waaay more experienced about Mali than the occasional photographer. So, please keep checking that page, as more uploads are on the way. This time though I will choose contents already featuring captions. -- Elitre ( talk) 14:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree--it's great to have the options, even if there's no context provided. Thanks for all your work in uploading these. Khazar2 ( talk) 15:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of New Criticism? Sure, it feels like (school)work, but this may end up a worthwhile project. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 15:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like a really good addition. Wikipedia doesn't have enough coherent articles about lit theory in my opinion, mostly because those who specialize in the field quickly lose their ability to write coherently. =)

As for the New Critics, I like them to a degree. Arguing the extreme positions that either nothing outside the text should matter or only what's outside the text should matter both seem unhelpful to me, but I'm a big fan of the New Critical focus on supporting interpretations with thorough textual evidence. What's your own take? Khazar2 ( talk) 19:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• "those who specialize in the field quickly lose their ability to write coherently" - Hehe...

I'm a bit of an extrinsicalist (?) myself. I prefer looking at the sociological situation behind a work, although naturally with explanations based on textual analysis; reception also seems like an interesting take, although I question its objectivity at times. The New Critics (or Wellek and Warren, at least), IMHO, at least recognised that intrinsic analysis was not the only way to examine a work, as opposed to the early Russian formalists. The need for textual evidence to support our analysis is self-evident, I think, and someone who only looks outside the text is, ultimately, unable to support their interpretation if it comes under fire. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 22:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

	The Citation Barnstar
	I know it might look like that I have passed the Bahrain GA review prematurely, without waiting for the source reliability concerns to be addressed, but I really do think the article is great. You've fixed a lot of the sourcing issues already, and I encourage you to keep up the good work and continue to improve the article. Good luck! FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 01:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the more I looked at it, the more right you were; the remaining sourcing cleared up in no time. Thanks for your thorough review--and for the barnstar-- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this article and say whether it should be renamed? Even though it's a very important subject currently there's little interest in it. Thank you. Nataev ( talk) 08:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Replied there, though my answer is a bit wishy-washy. From news coverage, it looks to me like either is commonly used. Khazar2 ( talk) 12:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi again! I didn't know about this. Since there's not much information about these people in English, is it OK if I leave their titles the way they are now? Thanks! Nataev ( talk) 20:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't sweat changing it unless someone complains; then you can run the Google searches and see what's the most common in English. Even the Askarov one is kind of a borderline case. Lots of sources seemed to use Azimjon for the first name. The important thing is that the article can be found by a user who types in any of the spellings, but you can do that by creating redirects. Thanks for all your work in this area, BTW! I was just admiring all those articles listed on your page earlier this afternoon. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 20:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response! I very much appreciate your help. Like you said I will leave them they way they are for now. Good work on Asqarov/Askarov! I should create an article about him in the Uzbek Wikipedia. Nataev ( talk) 20:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! He was actually one of my very first articles here... Khazar2 ( talk) 20:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I sent you an email about the song we discussed. Now, back to Jauss and figuring out his ontology and epistemology. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Finally got over my post-baseball hangover and answered ya. Good piece there. Khazar2 ( talk) 16:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• LOL, thanks.. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, these edits clearly violate AWB rule #4: Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits for the sake of your edit count. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. If in doubt, or if other editors object to edits on the basis of this rule, seek consensus at an appropriate venue before making further edits.. Please don't make edits like this again. Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 23:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Khazar, these edits are insignificant edits which really shouldn't be made with AWB (see rule #4). Thanks, Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 00:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Legoktm, I highly doubt Khazar cares about his edit count. He may have accidentally clicked save while browsing. A little AGF would be nice. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • You're completely right, I'm sorry about that, and have rephrased it. Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 00:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

( edit conflict)Thanks for your concern, Legoktm, but my experience is that those unneeded hard returns often cause extra white space to display at the top of the page (which is why AWB is programmed to flag these as a formatting error in the first place, unlike many minor corrections). This is actually something I fix manually when I see spot it, too. Given your level of concern about this, you might mention it at WP:AWB directly. It's silly that AWB be programmed to flag these errors as requiring fixing if it's also against AWB policy to fix them.

And seriously, do review WP:AGF--there's no need to jump straight to imputing petty motives. I wouldn't spend hours putting together full article drafts like [ one yesterday] if I was just gunning for edit count, which I no longer even bother to display on my page. I may have blundered on these two edits, but I've no more have been fixing these errors to drive up my count than you left this message to drive up your own. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 00:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

That said, you are right that these seem to be displaying the same, and my own ignorance of coding is showing. Is it just the hard return-infobox combination that creates an additional white space? How is it that I've seen this on articles before? I'll skip non-infobox ones until I figure this out. So I do appreciate your bringing it to my attention.(And cheers, Crisco!) Khazar2 ( talk) 00:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think it's something to do with the infobox templates... the British English template also creates white space. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I admire your commitment you've shown in the article lately, really. Thanks! FeelSunny ( talk) 23:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--it wasn't till I looked at it today that I realized how many dead links it had in it. Looks like FH rejiggers their website constantly, so I'm adding some archiving now. Khazar2 ( talk) 00:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Khazar. I hope you are doing fine!

BTW, have you encountered any problems archiving pages on WebCite recently? I have not been able to do so in the past few days. I've been sticking to Wayback Machine but I tend to prefer WebCite. I just want to verify if it is only me or if there's a problem with the website. Thanks! ComputerJA ( talk) 02:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Doing great, thanks--watching my Cardinals tearing up the baseball playoffs again tonight. I have problems with WebCite off and on, which is unfortunate, because I agree it's a great program--but I think they can't handle the web traffic they're getting. I did use it earlier this afternoon successfully, but I've seen it out for a few hours at a time before (this has happened to me a number of times in the past few weeks). Just now it opened up for me immediately, though--not sure what the issue might be. Khazar2 ( talk) 02:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Great! Sounds like a good Sunday. All I'm doing is staying on top with HW and taking short breaks on Wiki :p

Yeah, I keep getting the "Bad Request: Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand ... " I've only been successful once or twice this past week, and only for a couple of minutes before it stopped working altogether. Thank you anyways! Enjoy the rest of the night. ComputerJA ( talk) 03:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That's different than my issue, I just can't get them to load sometimes. Good luck straightening it out--and enjoy the week-- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Khazar2. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Online racism & discrimination.
Message added 00:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.

Jethro B 00:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting idea, but the broader formulation of the subject may be hard to cover from a global, longish-term perspective. The key would be to make sure it doesn't end up having problems with recentism or as a WP:COATRACK to cover just the recent incidents. Not that I think that's your intention, just that it would be a hard problem to avoid. Still, there would hopefully be some academic sources that look at this in various countries--China, US, Russia, Papua New Guinea, wherever, or maybe even from a global perspective.

Another option would be to narrow it just to the hashtag #unbonjuif and cover only this controversy, but I'm not sure that would survive AfD quite yet. (Glancing at Google News, it looks like it'd be close, with the real factor being whether this gets more than a day or two of coverage). A third option might be to include a bit about it in the SOS Racisme article, since they've spoken out strongly.

Anyway, right now I'm mostly soldiering away on expanding the CPJ award winners list, which I'm hoping to be done with by the end of the year. But I'll be glad to look at anything on this you do end up putting together, just give me a ping! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think individual articles on each incident would last, and I don't know how much content there'd be, although now that it's causing possible legal action, maybe it would survive. Maybe if instead of an article format, it was written as a list, with an explanation of what happened in a paragraph or so, and then at the end maybe a section for "commentary/analysis?" I think that it's possible that down the long run, if enough work is put in, we can actually have a viable article split into numerous sections based on the topic at hand; certainly, if it's a general article about a variety of social media networks, not just Twitter, regarding a variety of races, ethnic groups, and religions.

Anyway, thanks for your help. I'm too busy at the moment to be seriously involved in this, but perhaps when I have time I'll take a closer look and see what can be done. -- Jethro B 03:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Y'know where you should ask, is WP:WikiProject Internet culture. They might have suggestions for how this can be formatted/integrated into existing coverage. Good luck! Khazar2 ( talk) 03:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! -- Jethro B 03:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed on this edit that you made " Independent State of Azawad" link to " Azawadi declaration of independence". Pease wp:do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken, we have an Azawad article now, but because you bypassed the redirect, the infobox contented to link to Azawadi declaration of independence. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 06:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Emmette, I don't think I was the one who actually altered that link; the infobox (along with most of that article) was simply moved over from the Tuareg rebellion article during the split, as noted on the talk page. Also, since " Azawadi declaration of independence" is a different article than " Azawad", I'm not sure wp:do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken really applies here, since someone was deliberately targeting a different article. I don't object to your change, though. Khazar2 ( talk) 12:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 12:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Khazar2: I have a question about your edits to my additions to the UN cholera case section of Mario Joseph's page. You added a statement "a Pulitzer Center reporter described the case as going "nowhere fast"". The statement is of course, clearly opinion and does not mention Mario. Going back to the source, the Pulitzer Center didn't cite a source for that comment. I believe that the Pulitzer Center reporter is wrong, and that this case is actually moving forward in important ways, and is one of the most important cases out there on international organization acountability. But that's my opinion, so I didn't include it. I did include cites to sources that demonstrated that the case was moving forward, as a balance to the Pulitzer Center quote.

You removed them because they were POV and didn't mention Mario. I agree that they don't mention Mario, but neither did the Pulitzer Center quote to which they provide balance. In addition, I would argue that they are not POV. A report that Bill Clinton, a UN official, said that the UN caused the epidemic is not opinion. As a legal matter, it isn't essential that Bill be right about the causation- just the fact that a UN official says there is causation is significant, and undermines the claim that the case is going nowhere. As for the position of the legal and other scholars, it might be an opinion, but it isn't mine, it is theirs. The opinions in their articles might be wrong, but they are more than a fair balance to the reporter's statement that the case is going nowhere.

Thanks for listening! Jistis ( talk) 03:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I was overhasty. A lot of POV material has been dumped into that article lately by IP addresses that wasn't related to the subject, and I just checked the article for Joseph's name and moved on. Let me restore some/all of that, with my apologies--thanks for being patient with me. Khazar2 ( talk) 12:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking more closely, the Economist has some useful information on the lawsuit and its implications, while the other sources don't seem to really discuss it. I also double-checked the "nowhere fast" quotation, and not only does the article discuss Joseph, he's even mentioned in that sentence! I'm not sure where you're coming from with that one. I've gone into more detail on the talk page.

One other issue I had to raise independently of the article talk page--I notice from your user page that you're yourself a human rights lawyer with interests in Haiti, and I can't help but notice that you refer to Joseph on a first-name basis, and have done most of your editing on Joseph-related topics (Raboteau, Joseph, IJDH, BAI, Yvon Neptune). If you do know him, you'll want to review our guidelines on conflict of interest editing. Your input would still be welcome and helpful, but direct editing of these articles would be discouraged. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Please be aware that I've accepted the good review nomination, and I have started the process. I will go more in-depth soon.

Thanks.

-- Jethro B 06:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Although you insist you hate the administrative areas of the project, you've made good inroads in DYK and GA... and even in FLC. You're doing great work in human rights, so keep it up.  —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 12:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• As a side note, I really wanna find this. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 12:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! Yeah, I got involved tangentially in a few GAs recently and came to acknowledge the value of the process. I've written a dozen or so articles that might qualify, so I'm going to start putting those through a few at a time.
• As for STSA, looks like a wild tale--and another fine article-- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. According to WorldCat it's been out of print since 1922 so... mind you, I bought an anthology that includes Kwee Tek Hoay's Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang. There may be hope. Theory of Literature is still plodding along.

I'm sure you'll do fine with GAs. The criteria really aren't that hard, and generally reviewers know what they're doing. No dramahz either. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 12:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey Khazar,

I'm really sorry, but an in-life scenario popped up and I'm not going to be as active on Wikipedia for the next 3 days, except for monitoring some pages really, and won't have time to review the GA article. When I get back in 3 days, I'll head straight to the GA article and continue the work.

I'm sorry for any inconvenience, but thought I should let you know. I hope this does not happen again.

Thanks.

-- Jethro B 05:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No prob at all. There's no rush, and I'm still waiting for that IP to come back and respond anyway. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 05:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your clean-up work on Crucifixion Diptych (van der Weyden). I'm not that adept at the formatting stuff, but appreciate how you improved the article. -- BoringHistoryGuy ( talk) 19:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure, though most of the credit belongs to the wizards who program WP:AWB. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 19:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This may be right up your alley. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Wow that is great,but how you can edit the article please can u tell so it will be very easy for me. Kenasom ( talk) 11:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! But which article? I'm not sure what you mean. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Editor barnstar for you Kenasom ( talk) 11:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, technically, I'm just an editor, not an admin. But I appreciate the thanks! Cheers, Khazar2 ( talk) 11:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Re [2] - I think I accidentally hit rollback when looking at my watchlist. My apologies and thanks for reverting me.  Volunteer Marek  20:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries at all. Thanks for having that one on your watchlist! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 20:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I know it feels like work (as did writing it, trust me), but could you take a look at Theory of Literature and perhaps leave some feedback on the talk page? I'd like someone with a background in lit to look at it before I go to a layman for comprehensibility. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 15:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Can do. I'll do it right now, in fact. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 15:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. It's... a little big. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 15:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

		The Human Rights Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar for all-around superb editing in the area of human rights, and for giving a voice to the oppressed and downtrodden, while vigorously maintaining core Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV. This is editing at its finest. Jethro B 22:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Support ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, I got all of the articles in the Guillermo Endara article that required subscriptions, so I'll have a look through them and continue the GA review soon. -- Jethro B 22:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! And no hurry on Mr. Endara. He's not going anywhere. (300 lbs, dead, etc.). -- Khazar2 ( talk) 23:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That's what you think... Hehe -- Jethro B 03:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

		The Expert Barnstar
		I hereby award you the Expert Barnstar for your outstanding contributions to human rights-related topics. This award is given to a few people who are regarded experts in one or several particular fields. Congrats and keep up your excellent work :)!-- Tomcat ( 7) 17:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Very kind of you. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for joining WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech, much appreciated, — Cirt ( talk) 21:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for setting it up! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 21:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

No I don't, sorry. But I do follow him since June 2012 when I was bored about monitoring the situation in Bahrain and Qatar. You should ask CJ, he can help you for that.

Can you do me a favour help update this article Musallam Al-Barrak? He's now becoming the Kuwaiti most prominent opposition leader, after a recent rally where he addresses a speech breaking the Kuwaiti 3-decades old taboo by directly addressing the Emir. Nobody else ever dare to do that, until this man arrives. You can refer to the recent situation in Kuwait through this page 2011–2012 Kuwaiti protests. Currently he was in under detention, and Wednesday another violent clashes happened again. Myronbeg ( talk) 05:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I'll ask CJ. As for al-Barrak, I have a few other articles to work on first, but I can get to him sometime in the next week. Looks like an interesting subject. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! At this edit, that wasn't intended to be link spam. The Institute for Advanced Study at University of Minnesota is not a commercial service and it's not a spam type thing. WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It appeared to have been added by a single-purpose account, User:Curious1949, that's added 100+ links to IAS to Wikipedia. While perhaps not commercial, it's still promotional in intent for an individual website. If I'm wrong, though, my apologies--please feel free to revert. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 00:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see what happened; he/she simply touched up a link already there. [3] My apologies for the mistake. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 00:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I've reverted you at Raymond Geuss for removing two decent contentful links. Did you actually look at any of the links to the University of Minnesota Institute of Advanced Study before deciding to mass remove them as link spam? Dsp13 ( talk) 23:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of Wikipedia external links policy is that generally we don't include a long list of miscellaneous interviews and talks, and I didn't see anything suggesting that those talks were more notable than any others. I'm fine with your reverting me if you feel those links were helpful in this specific case.

I stand by my decision, though, to revert a mass insertion of links by what appears to be a single-purpose account. It's difficult for me to believe that every talk given at IAS in the past two years is a needed external link to a Wikipedia article. In the past when I've run into a WP:SPAM account, I've added a more explicit note explaining the situation and inviting others to revert me if an individual addition appeared helpful, and I do apologize for not doing that here; I can see how it caused unnecessary confusion, and I'll be careful to be more explicit in my edit summary in the future. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I roughly look at that page. Its much better now. And yeah don't worry about those links. If you can replace to it, its good enough. But what's with that subtitle 2007-2011 under his Parliamentary career? I don't see any significant events about it whether before or after 2007.

Yeah, you are welcome. Most of the Wikipedians has gone to concentrate about the Syrian civil war, so unpopular protests in Jordan, Sudan, Morocco, Kuwait articles can be easily outdated, which is why I concentrate most of these. That's why this guy came out.

Watch this vid in Qatif. On 00:05, do you see a guy on the middle left waving apparently, like two flags? One of the flag were waving the Bahraini flag, with another white flag attached on top with it, called it Freedom and Justice Coalition. This is not really the official Saudi flag, but you can treat it as a symbol represents Saudi Arabia protest flag. Just now, Kuwaiti opposition has announced that they will still go ahead with the demonstrations despite the government warning. And I agree with this author in AngryArab (blog of As'ad AbuKhalil) talking about pan-Gulf protest movement. If such uprisings in Kuwait really did happen, you will never know Saudis in Eastern Province and Bahrainis would carry three flags. Who knew? Myronbeg ( talk) 10:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The 2007-2011 is mostly me trying to find any way to make a section break in that very long "Parliament" section. If you have any other ideas for how to divide it up, please feel free to change. Anyway, any time you want more help on protest articles, just let me know! All best -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: [4] Contrary to popular myth, it is not grammatically incorrect to say "This led to them being arrested". Nobody says "I saw his winning the race". I put it down to 18th century prescriptive grammarians who insisted that English should follow the rules of Latin grammar regarding "gerunds". MaxBrowne ( talk) 13:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I've encountered this before as a prescriptive rule in both a grammar text I taught and a magazine style guide I used for another job, and so thought it was a settled issue. You're quite right, though, that there appear to be contradictory opinions on this; I'll leave it alone in the future. (And if you feel strongly about it in this article, feel free to revert.) Googling this for a moment turned up a great passage from Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage [5] about general confusion on this rule.

Anyway, thanks for pointing it out--cheers, Khazar2 ( talk) 15:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Human Rights for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot ( talk) 17:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be glad to. Might not get to it until Monday, though, depending on Little Miss Khazar's schedule. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 18:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say it's been fun doing The Signpost piece here, I like your answers. :) — Cirt ( talk) 20:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I was really glad to see you answering too--those articles you noted for improvement look like worthy ones. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 23:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)