User talk:Khazar2/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Thanks

Thanks for picking up the Witham page. You should visit some time. Have a Picture postcard. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, would love to! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

bassam al timimi

i think you made your second 1rr violation within 24 hours by reverting my edit. in any case, two things: the amnesty quote should be left as i said in my edit summary along with the amnesty ref. however, the other ref is not RS for his arrest. "a witness" is not really sufficient for BLP. Soosim (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I had fixed that typo 19 hours before; I apologize, I thought the typo fix had happened much earlier the day before. Since Sean has re-edited that since, it's not practical for me to self-revert, unfortunately. In any case, I'm not sure fixing another editor's typo and reverting your unexplained deletion will add up to a violation of 1RR, but if it does, I'll take my lumps. As the editor there who's most actively trying to use the talk page to look at sources and build consensus, however, as opposed to your hit-and-runs, I think it's hard to argue I'm the one who's edit-warring.

On your end, since this is a controversial article, you should try to avoid "accidentally" deleting the arguments of groups you disagree with. I'd also suggest you take just a few moments to read the article as a whole and perhaps some of its sources before making further changes. As with any article, it's usually best to learn about the subject matter and then edit, rather than edit a random sentence and ask questions later. You've done this several times now, all without using the talk page. If you really want to engage on this article, your views are welcome, but you should stop with the drive-by attacks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on the GA

Congratulations on getting First Amendment to the United States Constitution to Good Article!!!

I was wondering if you'd be willing to help copy-edit Freedom for the Thought That We Hate?

It's an FAC candidate at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/archive1 and it seems there are some that feel it could use some polishing of prose a bit more.

I consulted 'How to find good copy-editors and you seem to know the topic of freedom of speech quite well.

Thanks for your consideration, — Cirt (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I have a few GA reviews and some article writing lined up for the week that I'll need to get through first. So I may or may not get to it, but I'll be glad to help out if I can. Good luck! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well, any help at all with copy-editing the article itself would be appreciated at this point. — Cirt (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we're all set, but feel free to have a look and express your opinion if you like, — Cirt (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on shepherding this one through! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits

I have been disturbed by some of the strange misinformation and bias on Jeremy Hammond page. Thanks for the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abegaza (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! I may take a more detailed look at the page later. For stuff like that, which involves an unsourced accusation against a living person (the judge), don't hesitate to take it to WP:BLP/N, where there are always some editors who can help out. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Normando Hernández González

Hey there! I just created an article for the Cuban human rights activist Normando Hernández González and I was wondering if you could look it over and maybe give me a few suggestions. I see your name all over Human Rights pages, and I thought it might be good for the article to have a fresh pair of eyes. Thanks!Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 23:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Been seeing your name a lot around too! Thanks for all your work on human rights articles lately, and for creating this one. I added some suggestions to that article's talk page, but feel free to take or leave them. If this is a long-term area of interest for you, you might also think about joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights and adding it to your watchlist, sometimes we get some good collaborations going there. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate the notes, I'm definitely gonna start implementing them. And will do, thanks again!Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 07:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Jelena Balšić

Thank you for the barnstar. When I fist saw that you were going to review my nomination I thought to myself that Jelena Balšić could not get better reviewer. User:AmericanLemming was an icing on the cake. Thank you very much for your review. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you're very kind! It was my pleasure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-breaking hyphens

Hello! If you're inserting lots of hyphens it may be a good idea to insert non‑breaking hyphens, so that the word will never be split across two lines on the page. See Hyphen#In computing. Danrok (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I might look reprogram my AWB rules this morning--thanks for the suggestion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Help with Freedom of speech

• Freedom of speech

You're fresh of a WP:GA with First Amendment to the United States Constitution, I wonder if you could help with Freedom of speech?

I've never really embarked on a major quality improvement project on a "core" or "vital" article on Wikipedia before.

I'm going to try to poke around some other sources to see how they structure this type of article.

We first need to revamp it and reformat the entire page with a much better flow and structure pattern, throughout.

It should have a chronological flow, and be broken up more by history rather than topic or geography. I'm just not sure the best way to do that, yet.

Once that's done, it'll be easier to literally gut the entire page, and then re-expand those new subsections with much better sources than it cites at present.

What do you think? — Cirt (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this would be a great article to tackle. It's going to be tricky in lots of ways but it shouldn't be hard to improve over the hodge-podgy approach there now. I think your strategy of seeing other sources' organization makes sense. I'll add it to my watchlist; I don't know that I'll have time to actively help with the research, but I'll be glad to keep an eye on it and consult... thanks for taking this one on! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I also have other freedom of speech related projects on my list as well, but I'll make updates on the talk page as far as the research goes. — Cirt (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Style for centuries in Wikipedia

I have noticed that you are changing the style of how centuries are portrayed in Wikipedia. Have you read WP:CENTURY? This suggests that forms such as 8th century are preferred over 8th-century. MOS:HYPHEN concurs. Please desist. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• There is absolutely nothing at WP:CENTURY stating what you claim about hyphens. Adjective forms of compound terms like 19th century ("a 19th-century painting") are always hyphened. WP:HYPHEN states "When they form a compound adjective, values and unit names should be separated by a hyphen: for example, a five-day holiday.", and WP:CENTURY gives "Centuries are given in figures or words using adjectival hyphenation where appropriate: the 5th century BCE; nineteenth-century painting. Neither the ordinal nor the word "century" should be capitalised." (emphasis mine) Check the context of the sentence: if there are some that are not being used as adjectives, but still getting hyphens, please provide diffs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it seems that you are looking a differnt version of WP:CENTURY. Here is what I see:

Centuries and millennia

For purposes of written style, the English Wikipedia does not recognise a year 0. Therefore, for dates AD (or CE) the 1st century was 1–100, the 17th century was 1601–1700, and the second millennium was 1001–2000; for dates BC (or BCE) the 1st century was 100–1; the 17th century was 1700–1601, and the second millennium was 2000–1001. Centuries and millennia not in quotes or titles should be either spelled out (eighth century) or in Arabic numeral(s) (8th century). The same style should be used throughout any article. Forms such as the 1700s are normally best avoided since it may be unclear whether a 10- or 100-year period is meant (i.e. 1700–1709 or 1700–1799).

Remember that the 18th century (1701–1800) and the 1700s (1700–1799) do not span the exact same period.

I have highlighted the relevant examples so that you can see them them. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jezhotwells, I appreciate the input, but what appears to be confusing you is the difference between 17th century used as a noun, as in your example above, and 17th-century used as an adjective, as in "17-century painter". You can see the rules for this at MOS:HYPHEN. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• My point exactly, hence why I bolded "using adjectival hyphenation where appropriate ... nineteenth-century painting" (it's there, same version, try using CTRL-F to find it) and asked for diffs of the problem edits, if any. Compare "he is five years old" and "a five-year-old boy"; it's the same grammatical consideration. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Chenevix-Trench

I've decided to have two chews at the same oyster, and have nominated The Land of Lost Content for GA. As far as I can work out, the only even potentially problematic sources (this time!) are Tim Card's book (not used for anything important), and the Daily Mail. Is there anything I've missed? (It's quite short, of course, but very focused.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw that--glad to see you're continuing to work on the topic. It looks good to me at first glance. Since I'm familiar with the subject matter from the ACT review, I may pick this one and give it a quick review in the next week. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Demiurge1000, you may want an extra sentence in the lede at the very least. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Nolan page

Hello good sir, I understand you have a great deal of experience reviewing wikipedia articles, so my question to you; Is my nomination of Christopher Nolan good enough for a GA? Someone accidentally agreed to review the page, but backed out it seems.

Could you give it a peak and tell me if it needs a lot of work?

- SammyJankis88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammyjankis88 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I might be able to do the review soon, but can't make any promises; I've gotten entangled with a few slow-moving reviews at the moment that are taking my attention. Delays are just a part of the GA system, unfortunately, so don't be surprised if it takes a month or two to pick up a reviewer; there are always more editors who want to submit work than to review. Thanks for your work on that one, though--whether or not it's me who reviews it, I hope it makes it to GA! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ligier Richier

Thanks for making corrections to article.

All stared me in the face despite having checked and rechecked what I had written!

Most grateful.

Weglinde (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Thanks for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Monsters Inc.

Thanks for all your help Khazar. Koala15 (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! Now we can both sit back and look forward to the sequel... -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your help at Johnny Jordaan and elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Like Thanks for your meticulous work ethic. I've seen you around my Watchlist a few times this week. Enjoy the weekend. ComputerJA (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had a health flare-up that's kept me in front of the TV half the week--and since I can never keep my hands still, it's been typo-hunting galore! =) Feeling better now, though, and looking forward to the weekend--you enjoy yours as well! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you're feeling better. And thank you! I'm finally home so I'm on going at it, too. :D ComputerJA (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Glad you're feeling better too. (BTW, I may pop in at the Istiqlal Mosque review if the nominator doesn't show up. Fairly important Indonesian mosque, so it needs the best article it can get) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Great, thanks. I was actually going to ping you about that one, so feel free to chime in or revise at any point... -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Istiqlal Mosque GA review

Hi, it was good to see your comprehensive review and advised corrections, any way I feel that the review is closed in very short notice, Please give couple of days to make the corrections, any way I had made some corrections as per your advices, As you pointed the main issue is of RS's and layout. So my plan is to correct the RS's by today and will co-ordinate with the nominating editor to re-structure the original research work in next 2-3 days. So I humble request to your kind self to re-start the review and give us couple of days to solve the matter. As you see the GA nomination will take long time to get started again. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I think the problems with the article run pretty deep (a large amount of original research, serious copyediting problems, copyright issues, sourcing, etc.), so I think it's best that you take the time to address them outside the normal GA process and then later get a second reviewer's eyes on it. Glad to hear you're going to keep working on this important topic, though. Art and architecture articles tend to get picked up pretty quickly, so hopefully wait won't be an issue. (This one got reviewed in less than a month, after all, which is much better than the average). Again, thanks for all you do! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand the issues, and will coordinate with the main editor to solve the issue, and most importantly thanks for your advices at the GA review it will defenately guide us to make the article of GA standards. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! Just let me know if you have any questions or if there's another way I can pitch in. User:Crisco 1492 said above that he might be interested in this one, too, so once you've finished the initial issues, you might ask him for either a copyedit or a GA review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'd be happy to - at the very least - give a copyedit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your both support, I will coordinate with User:QatarStarsLeague (as he is a main contributor and GA nominatior), and will update you as soon as we complete the initial work. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Sagtikos GAN

Responded. Also just of future note, I cannot stand talk page notices, and I state so in the page notices. ;) - Also, I was trying for 100 days at GAN, and I was happy to let it sit there as long as needed. Mitch32^{(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.)} 23:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. My apologies for not reading through your talk page rules; you're welcome to simply revert my comment if you like, which should only take a second. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about ti too much. I'm just a bit of a stickler because it's really a waste of time for certain reasons to be notified. Thanks for the barnstar though. Mitch32^{(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.)} 13:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome--thanks again for all your contributions. Keep it up, you might get to 100 days at GAN yet. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Good Article nomination of Capital punishment

This article is a good article nominee.It would be of great help if U review this article.Any suggestions are highly welcome.Thanks!Suri 100 (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Suri, I might review it at some point, but looking at the article, it appears to be in fairly weak shape. There's some obvious proofreading issues, such as in the "Methods" section, where a number of commas don't have spaces after them and several parentheses aren't closed, or in the garbled text:

"In addition to banning capital punishment for EU member states, the EU has also banned detainee transfers in cases where the receiving party may seek the death penalty.</ref> New Zealand, South Africa, and most European nations except Belarus,[123]"

I would suggest doing a readthrough of the article and doing basic cleanup of stuff like this before the reviewer begins, otherwise it's likely to be quick-failed. I do appreciate your work on it, though! Good luck getting this important topic to GA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed.First of all thank u and i have seen u contributing a lot in upgrading article to GA status.Actually i have already went through the article, the garbled text and lack of spacing was due to my editing in adding ref and removing broken links!. I think the article should be accorded GA status.So i would consider any further suggestions fron you.Suri 100 (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Great--I may try to review this at some point down the line, but it'll depend on my schedule. Thanks for the fixes, and for your work on this one generally! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Barnstar

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For taking the effort to develop Bassem al-Tamimi article into a good article. Wow you now have 25 GAs, that's quite a milestone! Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, interesting to know that people can be jailed for over a year over "illegal" protests in other countries too. Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! And yeah, it was an interesting one to write--lots of complicated allegations all around. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed. One thinks of Pussy Riot... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Question

Since Gagak Item is coming along nicely at FAC and I was hoping to bring Lie Kim Hok up next, do you think you could spare some time to give the latter article a review? It's quite a bit longer than the last one of mine you reviewed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I'd be very glad to. I'll probably get to this today or tomorrow, otherwise I'll do it early next week. Glad it's going well at FAC for Gagak Item. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. BTW, if you're interested in parallel themes and plots you may want to check out Syair Siti Zubaidah, Syair Abdul Muluk, and Sair Tjerita Siti Akbari. One could easily establish a common formula with these works (or just wonder why gender disguise was so common in syairs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The Wild Bunch

Not sure how these barnstars are supposed to work and whether I s/b giving you one, but... just wanted to thank you for your work on the article review and say it was great collaborating with you. All the best ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope, definitely no need to give me one--I appreciate the thanks, though. It was great working with you, too; I don't usually often get to review subjects I'm this interested in. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hyphens

I've noticed you have been adding hyphens to constructs like "14th century". These hyphens are not needed. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The hyphen is only needed when the word is spelled out. So "fourteenth-century" is correct, but "14th-century" is not. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, I apologize. But US and UK publications appear to exclusively use the hyphenated form for "a 14th-century [x]" (e.g. [1], [2], [3]), and it seems odd that Wikipedia would have an independent rule. Can you point me to the part of the MOS you're looking at here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, here's the results from some dictionaries. I can't find any examples in the OED--I assume they prefer the word written out in all cases. Merriam-Webster seems to split half and half.[4] Cambridge appears to prefer the hyphenated form.[5], [6] -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MOS does not seem to be specific on this issue; however, I've been checking at various language and style websites and there is ambiguity here. When the date is spelled out, the hyphen is definitely required (or the meaning could be changed), but otherwise it is almost always omitted. To further complicate the issue, the advice on these sites indicates the date should always be spelled out, which (of course) nobody does. I'm going to butt out and let you do whatever you think is best, but I would suggest some discussion at MOS that leads to a clearer guideline is necessary before you continue with your work. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd actually argue that the MOS is quite specific on this issue. Numerals get hypenated as compound adjectives ("9-millimetre gap") per WP:HYPHEN, and ordinals use hyphenation as compound adjectives, too. For my reference, could you link or cite the websites you're alluding to above? Given the preference for this form in major publications with strict style guides (newspapers and dictionaries), it seems to clear to me that, at minimum, it's not widely accepted as an error. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Didn't we just have this discussion? And yes, numerals still get hyphenated in the MOS: see MOS:HYPHEN, among others "Values and units used as compound modifiers are hyphenated only where the unit is given as a whole word (in this case, century); when the unit symbol is used, it is separated from the number by a non-breaking space ( )." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Also "Centuries are given in figures or words using adjectival hyphenation where appropriate: the 5th century BCE; nineteenth-century painting. Neither the ordinal nor the word "century" should be capitalised." at WP:NUMERAL. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, it appears I have misunderstood. I will do no more reverting. That being said, it would appear to be in conflict with common usage. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I wonder if you're confusing "common usage" with "personal preference" here; so far as I can tell, major newspapers and dictionaries appear to prefer the same usage as Wikipedia, per the links I provided above. (This is something I checked before starting.) In any case, though, I've posted a brief query at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers per your request. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• That would be nice, to actually have an explicit example using a number. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• At the very least, I'll be able to point the next complainant to that thread. It's funny that for all the human rights and current events articles I work on, this hyphenation project is by far the most controversial thing I do on Wikipedia. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

A simple Google search reveals the extent to which the non-hyphenated form can be considered "common usage"; however, that doesn't make it right. That is why I am not contesting this matter any further. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. In the future, I'd strongly suggest you check in with things like the MOS, dictionaries, newspapers, style guides, or other editors before doing mass reverts of this kind; if I hadn't been online when you began, it would have been a lot of wasted time and edits for us both. I do appreciate your vigilance, though--thanks for all you do for the 'pedia. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Rights

Hi Khazar. I've added the reviewer and rollbacker rights to your account, in case they come in handy. I figured you're obviously experienced enough to make good use of them if/when you need to. INeverCry 17:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What a nice surprise--thanks. I'll do my best to use them for good instead of evil. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

9/11

You don't seem to be paying attention to what I'm saying. I haven't made a single post about the GA process. In fact, I've told you several times I'm not interested in it. But you keep going on about it even after I asked you to close the GA review. Please stop. AQFK (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Beyond the fact that you were posting to the GA nomination thread in the first place, your first words were "@Khazar2: The problem isn't with the article; the problem is with the GA/FA review process. According to WP:NPOV, only majority and significant minority viewpoints should be presented. Tiny minority and fringe viewpoints should be excluded or delegated to some ancillary article (if they are notable). So, the article is correct and the RfC was correct. The problem is with the GA/FA review process". Your edit summary for the post was "@Khazar2: The problem isn't with the article; the problem is with the GA/FA review process. According to WP:NPOV, only majority and significant minority viewpoints should be presented." And, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the GA nomination actually closed an hour before you posted your first round of complaints.

Frankly, if you weren't an experienced Wikipedia editor, I'd assume I was simply being trolled at this point. But I hope we can come to a point where we agree to disagree and part on good terms. Best of luck in your future editing in any case. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Added "-century" typo fix

Hi Khazar2! I saw this edit you made to Sting (musician) to change "an 18th century" to "an 18th-century", and decided to add a new typo rule so all AWB editors will be able to make similar changes. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Meeting

Nice to meet you on Men's parking space, thanks for improving ;) - Thinking of Peace movement today, I thought of you also, but most of all of another inspiring person, written on his birthday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! Always good to run into you, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you see that I made some progress on my work in progress highlighted there and top of my talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That's great--very nice work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Big thanks to you, Khazar, for all the GA reviews you've been putting in (and those hyphens... ooh boy, those hyphens)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! You missed being my 200th GA review by just a few hours... -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, that's about 4 times as many as I have. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

GAN of Bahrain Workers trials

I have reviewed this article and given suggestions. Suri 100 (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

....for all you tidying up of my listed articles. I'll try to remember to get my centuries right in the future. However, people like me need people like you!

Amandajm (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thanks for the kind note! Tinkering like that gives my fidgety hands something to do while watching baseball... -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll echo Amandajm's thanks - you've done a great job on the ones I help to look after as well! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good articles: Recruitment Center (Update #1)

Hello! Now that the recent Request for Comment has been closed, it is time to implement all the proposals that received support. Among those proposals was to conduct a "Recruiter Drive". However, instead of holding a "drive" WikiProject Good articles will be opening a "Recruitment Center". The current task at hand is to develop a system that everyone agrees on in which can be followed when recruiting a potential reviewer. A draft of a possible system can be found here. I (Dom497) am asking you to review this system and leave feedback on the talk page of "Recruiter Central". The current system can always be changed so feedback is important. As of right now, the current goal is to launch a 2 month trial run (beginning in late June/early July) to see if the Recruitment Center will even work. This message has only been sent to the users who supported the proposal on the RfC page as these are the beginning stages of this "project". Updates will be sent out when needed.--EdwardsBot (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Khazar2. You have new messages at Suri 100's talk page.
Message added 12:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Suri 100 (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Khazar2, thanks for going over Pitfour estate; funnily enough, I had wondered about asking if you would have a quick run over it but thought it might have been cheeky of me! You must be psychic! SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it just came up by chance--I run the DYK and GA nominations through AutoWikiBrowser's spellcheck a few times a week. I figured it was you, though, when I saw the title! I might try to take more of a look soon. =) Thanks for writing another quality article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I'm not too sure whether it's too early for beer where you are - it's 3pm here - but no one will look if you have a well deserved slurp if it is too early! Thanks for fixing the refs; I usually use the citation tool but will remember to change it to first name and last name in future (I think the citation template does it that way?). I like the challenge of Wiki code as it reminds me of the long ago days when I had to struggle with DOS and nonsensical file names made up from a string of letters. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! I have a user script that automatically points out these errors. And yeah, the citation tool defaults to an incompatible setting for ref harv (author instead of first/last)--this happens all the time on my articles too.

As for time, it's only 10 AM here--but who's to know? (::Quietly drinks beer and disposes of evidence before wife returns::) Cheers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy! (but throws in a sneaky question....) How do I do an author link when the first/last name format is used? Maybe the link isn't necessary in this instance though as the author (Charles McKean) is also linked to in the body copy? SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

That... is a very good question. I have no idea why it's not working there. You might ask at Template:Cite book about it. Sorry for not catching that on my first pass! You're the one who got me drinking this early in the day, though, so you have no one to blame but yourself. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Found it - no [ ]'s go in the 'authorlink' bitty - (will slurp some wine later to celebrate me feeling clever) SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You deserve it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kimberly Rivera

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kimberly Rivera requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 15:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's about the silliest speedy deletion tag I've ever seen. Did you not even look at the article's sources? Rivera's been profiled all over the place, and obviously meets the notability guidelines. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Way to go with Mam Sonando, yet another in a line of impressive articles on human rights figures throughout the world! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

River Witham

Hi Khazar2. Wow! - I see you have already done a bundle of GA reviews, and you're busy doing more. Brilliant work! I'm doing a review of River Welland, and I came upon River Witham. Interpretation of GA criteria is a matter of judgement, and reviewers will differ in some areas; that is a natural aspect of GA reviewing. On looking at River Witham my view was that it appears to fall short of GA criteria in a few areas. The lead doesn't appear to comply with WP:Lead, per 1b of WP:GACR. The images in the article squeeze the text, and there is a gallery, which doesn't seem to comply with WP:LAYIM, which is also part of 1b. There are also lists - another part of the rather fussy and tricky 1b. And the references were not set out as WP:FNNR per 2a (but I've sorted that part). I think there is room for individual judgement in assessing criteria, and I know that I can be a little over fussy at times. I'm also aware that sometimes a reviewer may not be fully aware of the criteria - I have been alerted in the past to areas that I wasn't paying attention to. I think it's an on-going evolving process, GA reviewing. It's a vital and important, and sadly under-appreciated task. I think you're doing a great job, and my comments are not intended as criticism, but as a helpful comment. I may be pointing out areas in which you hadn't been focusing attention, and you'll take that on board and move forward. Or, as I said, I may be being over-fussy, in which case, after reflection, you may dismiss my concerns. Either way - please carry on the good work. Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

PS. I won't be watching this page - so if you want to respond to me, please do so on my talkpage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note. I'll respond here to keep the conversation together, but will ping your talk page so you know I responded.

For such a brief article, the lead seems sufficient to me to meet the criterion (admittedly, barely sufficient), but if there's a particular point you feel it needs to cover, I'm sure Robert will be glad to oblige if you bring it to his attention. Galleries seem to me explicitly endorsed by WP:LAYIM: "If an article has many images—so many, in fact, that they lengthen the page beyond the length of the text itself—you can use a gallery.". As for the embedded lists, I'm not completely sure that these would be more usefully presented in prose--these seem like they could form the "long sequences within a sentence" that the guideline encourages avoiding--though I respect that we may differ that. Definitely a good catch on switching the order of the references and citations, though; I'll watch for that more carefully in the future, as well as other layout issues. (The WP:LAYOUT subcriterion is definitely my weakest point, since it's such a large guideline.) And more broadly, thanks for the input; I'm always glad to have my work double-checked. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I got here from the River Witham talkpage. With regard to the order of references and citations, WP:FNNR does not insist on a specific order. It says, " Usually, if the sections are separated, then explanatory footnotes are listed first, short citations or other footnoted citations are next, and any full citations or general references are listed last." I think Usually leaves room for other options, and many UK Waterways articles have the Bibliography first and the refs afterwards, because they use short citations, and clicking them did not always do anything useful if the order was reversed. This has been fixed recently, so that it highlights the book even if it cannot scroll it to the top of the page. There are quite a few UK Waterways Good Articles, and most of them use the Bibliography / References order, rather than References / Bibliography. Regards, Bob1960evens (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. Well, sounds like it's fine either way then. I appreciate your pointing this out. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just thought I would mention, I have been working through some of the pages in Category:Pages with ISBN errors, and there are quite a lot of articles in all sorts of subject areas which have the Bibliography first. Obviously others like the idea too! Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

2012 Hawaii Bowl

Are you still planning to handle the GA review for this one? Not to be impatient, it's just been outstanding for four months, and I am eager to get it wrapped up. Thanks. Go Phightins! 02:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I am. Sorry I didn't get to it just yet, and sorry again you had to wait so long for a review. I'm hoping to work on it in the morning. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Done, I believe. Go Phightins! 19:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

ThorWay

Hi there, I was just wondering if I could get your input on some back-and-forth editing I've been doing on the pages for the Oslo Freedom Forum and Thor Halvorssen. There is an editor, ThorWay (clearly implying some connection to the subject) that continually makes COI edits on these pages. I'm not saying that controversies and criticisms shouldn't be included in articles, but the additions made by ThorWay are full of peacocks, and are not reliable sources as in the case with a very long, POV paragraph being cited only by an article by an "award-winning author and journalist" from an independent, Pro-Palestinian online publication. I was just wondering if you had any advice on how I could handle this conflict?Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 19:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like the same questionable additions as the HRF article. I'll comment there myself. If no resolution can be worked out with ThorWay, who does seem a bit single-minded so far, the next step would be some sort of low-level dispute resolution like WP:THIRD. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

History of the Islamic Republic of Iran‎

Hi. The author of that article use Wikipedia as a tool to promote his articles. If you search his name on English Wikipedia you will find out that he added all his papers everywhere regardless of the relevance. That's why I removed that ref.Farhikht (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the author's account should be watched, then, but it's not helpful to delete the reference to a quotation you're leaving in the article. If you feel that sentence interferes with the article, that's fine, but I'd suggest taking out the sentence and citation together or leaving them both. Thanks for keeping an eye on this, your work is much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's better to substitute the ref with a paper by another journalist. I will do it soon.Farhikht (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article histories, I'm confused by what account you see as the spammer here; I'll follow up on your talk page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	As a token of gratitude for all your advice and suggestions during your GA review of the Feminist Improvising Group. It helped me a lot and I really appreciate it. —Bruce1eetalk 12:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your patience with my picky suggestions. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to a Wicnic in Gainesville on Saturday, June 22nd

Greetings!

Seeing that you've edited the article on Gainesville on Wikipedia, I'm inviting to the North Central Florida 2013 Great American Wiknic that will be on Saturday June 22, 2013, commencing at 1:00 pm, ten blocks north of UF campus in Gainesville,.

If you're able and inclined to come, please RSVP at at this URL.

Type to you later, Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Can't make it, but thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Zachary Taylor

Khazar2 - I have responded to all of your objections @Zachary Taylor. My reply on the Talk page was deleted, or lost, or some other glitch. I think it was too long or had bad code? So we were talking past each other. Gave the impression of an "edit war," but that was not the intent.

I think all is well now - my answer to your objections is there. Can you let me know if you can't see it? Bhawke (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks--can see it fine. Responded there. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I've now posted my reply to your reply. Thrilling.Bhawke (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Harry Yount

Hello Khazar2,

Thank you so much for reviewing Harry Yount. I was the primary writer and researcher, but several other editors helped with reviewing, copy editing and so on, and I will offer my thanks to them as well. This is my first Good Article, and I have long been worried that the process might be too difficult. Now that I have succeeded once, I would like to try a to bring a few more to Good Article status. If I sent you a couple of article titles, would you be willing to offer preliminary opinions as to their potential? Again, I am grateful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be very happy to. My experience has been that GA status is not terribly difficult (though sometimes it involves long delays due to the lack of reviewers). The criteria are basic things that most experienced Wikipedians do anyway: covering "main aspects" of the subject in a broad way (missing some details or sources is not a problem), avoiding nonneutral language, correct grammar & spelling, providing inline citations for quotations/stats/opinions, adding an image if one is available, making sure images have captions, etc. Occasionally you get a reviewer who asks for a few changes outside the GA criteria, like dead links or minor MOS issues, but it doesn't happen often.

So let me know what else you're thinking of nominating and I'll be glad to take a quick look at them if you like. And congrats again on the first GA! Hope it's the first of many, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Way to go Cullen! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Crisco. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible Good Article candidates

I am taking you up on your kind offer. Each of these would probably take a bit of work before submitting for Good Article review, but these are close, I think:

• George Meany - He was the dominant figure in the U.S. trade union movement in the mid 20th century, and his biography was a "miserable stub" before I expanded it. This is probably the least obscure article I've improved significantly.
• Vaillancourt Fountain - A recent DYK. I was the main writer, but several other editors helped out.
• Miriam O'Brien Underhill - A feminist who did her work by organizing all-women mountaineering trips 70 to 80 years ago.
• Cedric Wright - Although he might be considered a minor figure, I like this article, as he was the mentor and best friend of Ansel Adams.
• Sierra No. 3 - There have been a few rogue unreferenced edits that I would need to check out, but I think that it an interesting topic. No other steam locomotive has been featured in as many major Hollywood films and TV shows over many years.
• Fred R. Archer - I am pleased to have written this fairly detailed biographical article about a man mentioned in pretty much every biography of Ansel Adams, but only usually fleetingly.
• Norman Livermore - A devoted environmentalist who played baseball in Hitler's 1936 Olympic Games, and later became a close friend of Ronald Reagan.

Please don't feel obligated to take a look at all of these. Pick one or two, and I will be happy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, I spent about ten minutes each on these this morning and added some comments to their talk pages. I agree that all of these are close; most of these I think you could nominate today if you felt like it. (And since you sometimes need to wait as long as four months for a review, I hope you won't be shy about nominating multiple articles at the same time.) Underhill and Livermore might need a bit more work than the others, but that's just a difference of needing an hour or two of reworking instead of a few minutes. I wasn't able to check any of these thoroughly for grammar/spelling, accuracy, etc. but these are issues that can easily be dealt with during a review. These are ideal topics for your first GAs, by the way.

Whether you nominate more of these for GAs or not, though, thanks for the impressive body of work you've been accumulating. Wikipedia is often worse at social history-type figures than at generals or presidents, and it was a pleasure to give these a read this morning. (Especially Sierra No. 3-- what a fascinating topic! Who knew I was watching the same locomotive over and over in my favorite movies?)

As a side note, I don't know if this is of any interest to you, but I'd love to recruit you as a GA reviewer yourself--you clearly know what you're doing, and we can always use the help. It may seem intimidating at first (at least it did to me), but it's actually quite simple; the essays Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and What the Good Article Criteria are Not walk you through it in easy steps. If you ever are interested in that, ping me, and I'd be glad to look over your shoulder for the first one or two (not that you'd be likely to need it).

Anyway, just let me know if you have any more questions about these. Cheers, and happy editing, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sfn template

Hello Khazar and fellow stalkers. I've been using Template:Sfn in RCSI-Bahrain, but for some reason it isn't working properly (when you click on the reference -inline citation-, it doesn't take you anywhere). Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) You were missing the "|ref=harv" parameter in the book citations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  Ha! I totally forgot about that. It's working perfectly fine now, thank you. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  Glad to help! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

AWB needed

Can you please AWB the article in my sandbox? Thanks. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I didn't find any typos, but I did fix a few ref linking issues at the bottom. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you sir! Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Skyfall (song)‎

Hi Khazar, I've had a further spin through today and think I caught most of the bits and pieces. Drop me a line if you spot anything else that needs fixing. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take another run at it tonight. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Fuck peer review

1. Fuck (film)
2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1

I've listed the article Fuck (film) for peer review.

Help with furthering along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Fuck (film)/archive1.

— Cirt (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw this on my watchlist and rushed here expecting to find someone very unhappy with the peer review process! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha same .. --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 01:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It's probably the best section header this page will ever get... -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Heheh, thanks! And as a sidenote, I truly love and respect the peer review process! :P — Cirt (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey Khazar, don't think I ever introduced myself. Just wanted to say thanks for all the copyedits you've done — you must get around a fair bit — I think I've seen you contribute something to every single article that I've created so far! -- Mike

You're very welcome--I'm glad you find that helpful, and not annoying! And thank you for your article creation, a far bigger contribution than my Wikignoming. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

312 articles created? 212 GA reviews? You're being very modest, I wouldn't call that Wikignoming! -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Ha, I guess it does add up. Always feels like Wikignoming when I'm doing it, though. =) Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I Like those numbers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for The Most Famous Man in America

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

		The 100 DYK Medal
		Don't forget this! Quite an achievement, congratulations! :-) Hillbillyholiday talk 17:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What! How dare you beat me to it Hillbillyholiday! Congratulations Khazar! Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! That is quite an achievement! ComputerJA (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Already? And you haven't even done much self-nominating! (Far as I can remember, at least) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Almost all of the first 80 were self-noms, before I switched accounts. It's been sitting at 98 or 99 for so long though that I figured I'd do a self-nom to satisfy my love of round numbers... -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

GA barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Nelson Mandela to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Great news! And thank you doubly. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was a joint effort. I hope we can work together again sometime (maybe to try for an FA push for Mandela?) Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• The both of you did a hell of a job. That was a months long project, looking at the history. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! MBO's really being modest here--she did 90% of the research and content for this rewrite, I mostly wielded the machete to hack away questionable or trivial older content.

And yeah, it'd be great to do some more work together, MBO. I generally steer clear of the FA process--it seems like a lot of effort for tiny returns in article improvement--but I'd be glad to give some assistance if you decide to go for it. (At the very least, for a topic this significant, we might take it through peer review and see what they say.)

On the GA level, if you're ever interested in anything on the top 100-200 of WikiProject Human Rights' most popular pages, I'm hoping to get as many of these as possible up to GA in the next few years, so if anything catches your fancy there in the future, drop me a note and I'll be glad to partner up. Are you interested by any chance in collaborating on United Nations later this year?

It's been a pleasure! -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what I could offer for an article on the UN; I don't have any books on the subject or anything like that. Currently, I'm trying to do some work over at Karl Marx (which is in that WikiProject list); I didn't think that it was ready for GA when it was nominated back in 2011, so I'm just trying to pull it up to a standard that I am happier with. I am also working, slowly but surely, over at Fidel Castro, Muammar Gaddafi, and Mao Zedong, all figures with heavily controversial human rights records; if any of those interest you, I'd be happy to have you along. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I might jump in on one of those later on this year. I need to finish off the remaining four entries in my user page "to do" list, but I'll make a note that you're working on those and possibly see you there... thanks for taking on these big figures! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added all of these to WikiProject Human Rights; I hope that that's okay. All three held quite strong beliefs on this issue; Castro lectured the UN on the need for "the rights of humanity" while Gaddafi initiated the "Muammar Gaddafi Human Rights Award", despite the fact that all three oversaw regimes that have been widely recognised as suppressing the rights of the individual. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hm, that's an interesting question. The scope of WP Human Rights has always been poorly defined, including obvious topics like famous human rights laws, issues, and advocates, but also violators and violations, so I can't give you any reason not to include those three. But probably as much as been written about, say Tony Blair, Vladimir Putin's, or Barack Obama's approaches to human rights as about Gaddafi's and Mao's--but it seems like it would dilute the project to start including all major 20th century politicians. I certainly don't have any problem with your adding them to the WikiProject for now, but I'm not really sure how to address this long-term. Perhaps I'll start a thread on the WP Human rights talk page and get opinions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Midnightblueowl, I can tell you right now to be ready for a heck of a review if you try to nominate Mandela. Something on par with the current Middle Ages nom, likely. I know a couple of very good copyeditors who could help before then, if you want. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco 1492 – I can imagine it would be a huge undertaking. Its certainly not something that I would want to undertake right away, but it is something that I'd like to do in future at some point. Any copy editors who would like to take a look through the page before then would have my full support, of course. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• We might put it up for peer review and see what feedback we get. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• (ec) Well, some people who may be interested in copyediting or peer reviewing include User:Brianboulton, User:Wehwalt, User:Sarastro1, and User:Eric Corbett. They are fantastic and very helpful (Eric is quite sharp tongued, but nobody can say he doesn't know his grammar and Wikipedia editing). If you're preparing for an FAC run, they may be willing to look. I'd like to help too, although I'd need a heads up before then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'll be happy to look once it's ready. I haven't done much in the human rights area, though I am presently working (on and off) on Thaddeus Stevens, who certainly qualifies.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Nice--he certainly does. I'll tag it as WP human rights now, in fact. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)