User talk:Khazar2/Archive 15

Thanks!
Thank you very much for the barnstar and for taking the time to review The Whistleblower. Also, if you don't mind my asking, were you able to watch the movie? --1ST7 (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, you know, after reading the critical responses, it just sounded too depressing. So I watched Wings (film) instead, which was surprisingly entertaining for a drama of that era. Anyway, my pleasure on the review--enjoy the weekend, Khazar2 (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The movie is very hard to watch, as well as somewhat depressing. Hope you have a good weekend, too. --1ST7 (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

And thanks from me too!
Thank you so much for the review, your compliments and the Barnstar, Khazar. It was great to work with you again – in fact, it was after our earlier discussion (I think it was the "The Answer's at the End" GAR?) that I started addressing the need for images in these articles, and found that there is quite a bit of relevant material in WikiCommons after all.

Also, something I've been meaning to say for ages: you really make contributing to wikipedia such a pleasant experience. So many times I've seen examples of your generosity and positive messages on talk pages. (Hope I'm not embarrassing you here!) I've never taken the time to find out how to give a Barnstar (shame on me, I know), but I'll be rectifying that soon. Sincere thanks again! JG66 (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks so much! Kind words like that are more appreciated than any barnstar. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

RE: A brownie for you!
Thanks so much, I appreciate the brownie! Regarding the Christina Aguilera biography, that sounds like a good idea. At quick glance, the article seems to have a solid structure, and with some cleanup and referencing tweaks I think the project will be well on its way to another GA! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That'd be fantastic! I also left a note for Simon about that, and he seemed interested, too. This week Aguilera was the 411th most popular article on all of Wikipedia, so it'd be a great accomplishment to get it promoted. Good luck with it, and let me know if there's any way I can pitch in. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

GA films

 * Wow, thanks! I was worrying that people would revert, not that someone would like the concept enough to help with the sort, and give a barnstar. (By the way, that anonymous IP was me too. First time in a while that I've edited while accidentally logged out.) --  Zanimum (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha! Well, between you and me and your IP evil twin, we should be able to get the sorting done in a week or two. I'll be trying to get a letter or two done each day. Thanks again for taking the initiative on this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Highbeam request
Hi Khazar2, I was hoping I could take you up on your gracious offer on Talk:Voting Rights Act of 1965 to help out with your access to HighBeam. I'm trying to access the following source: Kitty Dumas, Bilingual Voting Help Extended After Partisan Scrap in House, Congressional Quarterly volume 50, page 2179 (1992). The Congressional Quarterly website requires a subscription to access this content, but I thought perhaps you may be able to pull it up on HighBeam or another service you might have access to.

More generally, if you could find any substantial writing on the 1992 legislation that amended the Voting Rights Act—which was called "Voting Rights Language Assistance Act of 1992", Public Law 102-344—that would be fantastic. There appears to be little in the way of law journal articles written on this legislation, and I'd like to spruce up the Voting Rights Act article with more info if there are sources out there.

I greatly appreciate any help you can provide. Thank you! Also, I haven't forgotten about our plans to conquer Democracy and I do hope we can work on that in the relatively near future, though things have been progressing a bit more slowly on my present work than I anticipated, so it may be still some time before I'm ready to help tackle that article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, my Highbeam account expired. Somebody might be able to help you with the Dumas source at WikiProject Resource Exchange, though--I've gotten good results there before. And no hurry on democracy, it's still a while before I could do it myself. Good luck with Voting Rights in the meantime! -- Khazar2 (talk)
 * Thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 15:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for reviewing Early life of Fidel Castro and for the GA barnstar! Oh, and I'm glad that you showed some interest in the Aleister Crowley page; a fascinating individual, and I enjoyed doing all the reading in order to write that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, MBO! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A favour....
Hi Khazar2, I wonder if I could ask a favour of you, please? Pitfour estate was quick failed for GA - I have no intention of nominating it again, (or anything else) as what is done is done and it makes more sense just to simply move on. I did have a bit of a strop and [probably] regret that but at least I pretty well managed to confine it to my own talk/user page. However, I do like messing about on Wikipedia, so eventually switched stroppy mode off again and intend to just 'play' in the areas I'm slightly more familiar with (DYK probably - sorry Crisco!). My question is: from that review, I don't know exactly what is amiss as no examples were given. Unless I'm missing something it boils down to "I'm failing this because it needs too much copy editing and statements need to be properly sourced."

Would you mind having a [very] quick peek to give me some pointers as to what I'm doing incorrectly or what I should be doing to improve future articles? I'm not asking for you to comment on the review or go through the article in any detail, just to be kind enough to give me some hints as I respect your opinion. SagaciousPhil  -  Chat  13:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw this quick fail when it happened and was puzzled by it; I meant to follow up but then got distracted by a shiny object somewhere. Personally, I think you should simply renominate and get a second opinion. I respect Henry as an editor and reviewer, but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of actionable points there except the image tags; the copyediting comment is meaningless without examples, and you've already had some other editors sign off on this.
 * Most of all, I hope this doesn't drive you off the GA project, where your contributions have been greatly appreciated! Unusual reviews like this can frustrating, but they're the outliers; I hope you won't see it as a judgment on your work overall. Anyway, I'll look at the article in more detail later today, but at first glance, I certainly don't see extensive problems. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I gave it a good copyediting pass just now. I did see a few things to fix (which I did) and some borderline fixes (which I also did). Ironically, though, I also copyedited one of the reviewer's GA nominations this weekend, which was a copyediting trainwreck compared to this (if you take a look, you'll see what I mean). I also added 2-3 tags to the article, which normally I know is a bit rude, but I just didn't have a convenient spot to note my questions as I went; I hope you don't mind.
 * I really think you should renominate this for GA today (once you've made the quick fixes I asked for with those tags)--if you don't, I might on your behalf! It's high-quality work that you should be proud of, so don't let an over-abrupt GA review sour you on the process. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your help, it really is very much appreciated. After Baffle gab1978 and Eric had been through it I was so god-damned proud of that article - It also felt a bit "Wow, Eric Corbett took the time to not only look at an article I'd created but helped do some copy editing on it too!" - Then to have what seemed (to me) such an abrupt and abrasive quick fail was more than a slap in the face. Thanks again for going over the article and tweaking, I feel a bit better about it again now! I honestly thought other articles I'd worked on (Jamie Fleeman, Crimonmogate and Udny Castle, for instance, had been reasonable but then stroppily decided they must also all be pretty dire as well. You've helped restore me having at least some believe in my abilities!  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  19:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! You should be god-damned proud of that article. It looks like both Eric and Drmies are on the case now, too, so between all of us, I don't think anyone can say there are serious copyediting issues left. Good luck with renominating it for GA! I'm always glad to see your quality work in the queue (and will be even more glad to see it promoted)! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Delicious, thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Thank you! Love and drinks all round! Amandajm (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Careful, y'all are going to get me tipsy... I still have to drive home tonight... -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

 What can I offer you, grapes? (Harvest time) For looking at my first request for a peer review, link on the first word on my user page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, grapes--thanks! And good luck with the peer review! I may try to chime in there when I'm caught up on my GA review backlog. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Some tea for you!
 Just in case you prefer coffee ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What's funny about this is I was just trying to ride my mobility scooter to the local library and turned around after three blocks because it's too @&$!(*#@ cold outside. So all these hot beverages are greatly appreciated! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pink mittens novita teddy.jpg. Try this on. ```Buster Seven   Talk  14:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * lol, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Say, in smaller sizes they'd be perfect for Little Ms. Khazar. Coordinated outfits with daddy? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Or we could just pull one over her head. Might interfere with visibility but it'd be a lot quieter around here, I could tell you that... -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL. Oh I feel so bad for laughing but... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A tiny matter of punctuation
You removed a hyphen in Analytic Hierarchy Process. It was the second hyphen in a "hanging hyphen" pair. Best would be to restore it or to fix the first hyphen per the suggestions in WP:HYPHEN. Certainly it's no big deal, but you are probably the very best person to straighten it out. Lou Sander (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I don't know that WP:HYPHEN gives any guidance in this rare case, but looking at a few samples online, such as this, it looks as if the usual approach in such cases is to omit the first hyphen as well, which I've now done. Thanks for pointing it out-- Khazar2 (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

 * Thanks, my pleasure! -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Premium Reviewer

 * Thanks, that's very kind! It was a pleasure collaborating with you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

One of your Nominees
Requests for adminship/Cerebellum. I thought you might like to know. ```Buster Seven   Talk  00:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tipping me off--would have missed this otherwise. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A question for you
Hey there. I see that you added a death date and location for Ted Rusoff and I was just wondering how you got that information and if you had a source somewhere.

Thank you.

Chancefate (talk) 06:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)ChanceFate
 * It's actually an anonymous IP who did that; I just corrected some typos. I've removed the death date and location until verified by a reliable source. Thanks for pointing this out, -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

GA reviews
If you'd like to pick up these reviews, or find someone else to, I'd appreciate it. I no longer do GA reviews.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk:Ten Dollar Bill (Roy Lichtenstein)/GA1
 * Talk:The Quest (sculpture)/GA1
 * Talk:Die Forelle/GA1
 * Sorry to hear that. I may pick up one of those myself, will find new reviewers for the others. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The entire process the last few days soured my desire. I might reconsider in a month or two. I'm going to focus on content for the articles I've wanted to work on or have been working on. No one bothers me in my little section of the project. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool--good luck with them, Khazar2 (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, CH, for your initial review of The Quest. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I finally got the kid to show up to start the review Talk:Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey/GA1, and I think he hasn't read the essay on what the GA criteria isn't.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear you're disagreeing there. Reading the review, though, his comments don't seem to me prima facie outrageous or unreasonable--you're burning this bridge a little quick by confronting him there and already going to another user for a second look. FWIW, I'd encourage you not to be quite so confrontational about it, and see if you can find a way to find middle ground or collaborate there instead. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I just don't like getting second-guessed by a 15-year old.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you're frustrated, but I don't know what I can say to help. Much of my time on Wikipedia this past week has been trying to deal with all the issues springing up around you: the fight over the botany articles, the fight over the "morro" article, the frustrated editor following the Pitfour estate quickfail, the confrontation with Amanda at the Kirkpatrick Chapel GA, and now taking over your reviews after you quit them. It bums me out to see you back on my talk page just two days later with yet another problem getting along with yet another editor. If you don't feel like you can work with a younger editor, it's your right to withdraw from the review; FWIW, though, I'd suggest you use it as a chance to break this bad streak and find a way to collaborate, instead of escalating the situation into another drama requiring outside intervention.
 * The reason I'm saying all this, instead of something noncommittal and evasive, is that I really do value your work here, as do many others. You can try to dismiss us all as a Wikipediocracy conspiracy, like you did the last time I said this, but as someone said at the AN/I thread, friendly collaboration with others is just a basic part of the Wikipedia toolset. Add it in and I think you could be one of our best GA contributors and reviewers. This may all be unwanted advice, but hey, it's my talk page; my advice is all that's on tap! Good luck with the review, whatever approach you take with it. I hope I'll see it as a GA soon! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice
This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy Lavender review
Thank you for your time and effort getting this passed. Also, thanks for the Barnstar, don't get many of those, first one actually !  Neonblak talk  -  16:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Thanks
Thanks K2. It's hard to edit certain areas - I thought of K2 while writing your monicker because the attrition rate of those who climb it is about 20%, which is lower than the attrition rate on wikipedia for people who try to edit with a clear neutral eye the kinds of difficult articles we happen on. Cheers and look forward to working together as usual. Nishidani (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That really is an apt metaphor... -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Carmen Busquets
Hi Khazar2. Could you review my suggested changes to the introduction of the Carmen Busquets article? Please see the Talk Page. Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not my area of expertise, unfortunately; I was just making an MOS tweak there. Cheres, Khazar2 (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, Khazar, for another great review. Much appreciated! Maybe one of these days I can return the favour. Have a very nice week. Moisejp (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! You seem to submit your nominations practically perfect, which makes my life easy... -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

GA review
Thanks for the GA review. I just want you to be aware that I have responded to your comments about Super Rich Kids. Good work, my friend. 和DITOR E tails 19:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks from me too
I am a beginner on Wikipedia I just wanted to thank you for your work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schaffdemi (talk • contribs) 17:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and welcome to Wikipedia! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Indiana
Khazar2 - After more thinking, I looked over the Indiana Wikipedia page. It gets constant edits and appears to be a mess. Some of the tables and excess photos need to be in separate articles. I may try to work on it next spring, using Virginia (a featured article) as a "template". Maryland is another article that could use help. If reorganizing Indiana causes too much of an uproar, I will retreat to upgrading the Michael Joseph Owens article. For someone who revolutionized the glass industry, "his" Wikipedia page is awfully barren. TwoScars (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Really glad to hear you're thinking about it! Yeah, it can be tough to take on the high-traffic articles, though in my experience, it's not as tough as it first appears. Usually my own system is to post to the talk page a few weeks before I start, something like "Hey, I'm interested in bringing this up to GA, and I wanted to start by leaving a courtesy note for long-time editors of this page--what work do you think is left to be done?" Sometimes I also outline my own planned revisions. If you get a response, you can start collaborating; if not, you can start boldly rewriting. Surprisingly, though, I've almost never gotten a response when I do that, and few objections to even huge changes to articles--usually the traffic just turns out to be a lot of passing IPs or new editors, and the regulars are very happy someone's willing to improve it.
 * Anyway, if you do decide to go for it, feel free to ping me. I'm not specifically knowledgeable about Indiana, but I am knowledgeable about GA, and would be happy to chime in on any discussions that result. And good luck w/ Michael Joseph Owens, too--sounds like an interesting character. Glad we bumped into each other on here-- Khazar2 (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Super Collider
Hey Khazar! I've recently opened a GA discussion about Super Collider, but the nominator informed that I wasn't eligible to do the review. Can you take over the process? Thanks in advance.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd be happy to. Thanks for jumping in to do some of these reviews, it's much appreciated! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Fuck featured article candidate discussion

 * Fuck (film)

Notifying you because you were the GA Reviewer.

Fuck (film) is a candidate for Featured Article quality &mdash; comments would be appreciated at Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Congrats on taking it so far, and good luck with the candidacy! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Thanks, this was super-nice of you, particularly as I just signed on to apologize to you. Sorry my response was heated; Mrs. and Little Miss Khazar and I all have headcolds this week, so we're in a foul mood at the Khazar house! I do really appreciate all your work on this and other MCU articles. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, I shouldn't have been so quick to react the way I did. If it is any consolation, Favre1fan93 (talk) and I are takin your suggestions under advisement.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it--I know it's in good hands with you two. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion
Hi. You've participated in the editing of New England Sports Network. Can you offer your opinion about the inclusion of material in an article that's taking place in this consensus discussion, in which the reliability of that source is one of the issues that was raised (among others)? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like all I did on that one was tweak a hyphen; I'm sorry to say I'm not knowledgeable about the topic generally. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The topic isn't NESN, it's Garnet Bailey. At issue is whether to include a passage in the Death and legacy section. Nightscream (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the Younger Than Yesterday GA review.

 * Delicious, thanks! This is my second dessert of the day, though--I hope the next person leaves a carrot or it's going to play hell with my diet. Anyway, my pleasure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Super Collider GA
Hey, thanks for reviewing the article for me! As for redoing the main Megadeth article, it is something I have been mulling over for a long time. It would be much more involved than doing an album article though, and I don't have as much time as I used to. Improving that article is on my long term radar though.

thanks again! --L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that might be a good one to try to recruit a collaborator for. You seem well qualified for it, though. Anyway, my pleasure, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Vinzenz Schöttl
No problemo :) Keresaspa (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:The Medico of Painted Springs/GA1
Thanks for reviewing! I have addressed the issues you have raised. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 05:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, will swing back by there this morning. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

STOP!
Hey, I think you should stop awarding GA barnstars to people, coz I want to show my appreciation to people too! On a more serious note, to mix it up a bit, I suggest you award different topical awards, especially those that are rarely used, instead of just the Good Article Barnstar. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad idea--I may start familiarizing myself with those, especially for people to whom I've already given one GA barnstar. Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Request to be recruited for Good Article reviewing
Hello! I am looking for become more involved in reviewing Good Articles, and given that my main focus tends to be military and language, I felt that you would be the best reviewer to help me. I noticed that In Transit has also mentioned you in their waiting list entry, so please feel free to decline me if you wish.

Thank you for your time. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to; I'll set up a page for this later this morning. Very happy you're interd in doing this! I always find it to be a lot of fun. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I wasn't setting myself up for acceptance, and I really wasn't expecting such a quick response! - Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

My user talk
I know you mean well, but I've had it with this place.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 15:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry to hear it; it's a shame to lose you. I hope you'll at least check back in a few weeks and see what happened with Hasteur's proposal. I think it's very unlikely to pass. Anyway, whatever you decide, thanks for all you've done, and for the massive number of readers your work will continue to serve. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've lost sleep over this place and I just can't keep up with all this meta garbage anymore. If Hasteur's proposal goes through, I'm gone. That's what I've decided. RHaworth deleted the infobox archive, and I've taken care of a bunch of useless crap on my watch list. Really, I cannot have been acknowledged as "editor of the week" when I have so many blocks for edit warring, are currently involved in a nearly ear long content dispute, have been an administrator and then desysopped, and all this other crap just because I make sure that a bunch of pages on Japanese children's television have the correct translations on them rather than whatever the fandom has decided they're going to call things instead.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 15:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear you--when you're losing sleep, it's time for a long break. (I've been there, too.) Perhaps when you come back (I refuse to say "if" yet), you'll be able to find some quieter or less controversial area to work in for a bit to make it fun again.
 * FWIW, you weren't the only one in the Hall of Fame with a substantial block log; in my eyes, you still deserve it. Part of the Editor of the Week project is to highlight the good editors are doing on Wikipedia even when imperfect. And of course, we'll all imperfect! I wouldn't have a "2" after my name if Khazar1 hadn't gotten involved in some needless drahmaz that, predictably, no longer seemed important to me six months later.
 * Anyway, there's only 64 people ever who have made more edits to Wikipedia than me, and you're one of them--I'd hate to lose you! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I still cannot accept the recognition if parts of what was sought as the reason was based on my deleterious behavior. And I only really lost sleep years ago when I was being stalked by someone who I ultimately was instrumental in banning.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it's your decision. I do hope things can resolve amicably soon, though. Cheers and best of luck, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's just not worth it anymore. All the ridiculous hate I get offsite because I tell them Wikipedia can't use one translation over another. This nonsense now about page locations. If I'm banned over it I'm just done. Then you can use me as a case study as to why the site is losing editors.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark Miller -- 06:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

ricky Oneil article
Ricky is a real person who starred in the TV program treasure island and this webpage proves he exist: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0642290/?ref_=fn_al_nm_2 Must his Wikipedia be deleted? Venustar84 (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

GAN December Backlog Drive
Hi Khazar. I'm currently creating the backlog drive page and I just wanted to confirm with you that you are willing to pledge 2-3 cents per review. If not, no worries. :) -- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, put me down for 3 cents apiece. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 01:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please be careful,
and don't make nonsense of the meaning, both the "was" here are needed. Johnbod (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the mistake; after I see a few other errors on a page, that's an easy one for the brain to process incorrectly. I'll try to be more careful with those in the future, though I'd suggest in any case removing the awkward "was was". In this case something like "knowledge of the precise location" or "knowledge of the precise burial site" would probably be fine. Anyway, thanks for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, I agree it it's not the best in prose, but it makes sense. Johnbod (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

A strange one
Hi Khazar2, hope you're well. If you're not too busy, would you be able to look in at User talk:Quadell? A very strange situation, regarding a new Harrison biography, which … well, it basically rips off Wikipedia's Harrison album and song articles. If you felt like hitting "helpful" on my Amazon review (as "HariG"), which is linked from Quadell's page, that would be excellent. I'd simply like to ensure that the review is helpful/popular enough to register in the listing's main space. Quite understand if you'd rather not of course. Thanks! Best, JG66 (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow--I've read about this happening a few times before, but what an odd experience for you. You might try contacting User:Moonriddengirl, who's an expert on prose copyright issues, to see if there's any kind of actionable violation; we are donating this text to the world but my understanding is that they're still required to credit us. And I will find my Amazon login, or create one, to give your comment a thumbs up...
 * But hey, no higher compliment your work could receive, right? -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha! I guess that's a positive of sorts, isn't it? Thanks very much, K2 – and if you could sling in a "helpful" vote on Amazon, that would be just great. Best, JG66 (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, big thanks again for that. Best, JG66 (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:IPI World Press Freedom Heroes
Category:IPI World Press Freedom Heroes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Million Award
Thank you. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, thank you! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Me again .......
Hi Khazar2, I'm guess I'm going to be the bane of your life but ... I decided to dip my toe into undertaking a GA review again mainly because the article particularly interests me. I think the article is in pretty good shape and I've just posted some initial comments; however, having seen another article that I considered was in pretty good shape quick failed the other day my confidence in my skills is not high. Would you mind having a very quick skim to make sure I'm not making any dreadful errors? SagaciousPhil  -  Chat  11:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, you're the light of my talk page--drop by any time! Yeah, I'll be glad to take a look, though it may not be till tomorrow; I'm hoping to be out with Mrs. and Little Miss Khazar most of the day, health permitting. And don't let that quickfail bother you for another minute. I don't know if you followed any of it, but that reviewer ended up at AN/I for his reviews immediately after and has now stopped reviewing. The problem was not with your article in that case. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thank you - no hurry at all, enjoy your day!  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  11:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC) PS: It was a different quick fail that I noticed ...


 * Hey, thanks! And thank you for all you're doing! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to second these, you're a ray of positive light in what is generally a miserable. negative. petty website. We need more Khazars that's for sure!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm working on that, but Little Miss Khazar won't be old enough to edit until at least 2027; she's still working on not calling cats "apples". -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy Editing

 * Hey, thanks! I may have to steal that "Department of Fun" userbox off your page, too... -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for the Million Award for Aleister Crowley! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Dan Wolf
Would you please reconsider your quickfailing of Dan Wolf? I've put a lot of work into it, and I'm willing to fix any issues. All I'm asking for in 7 days to fix it, something I've been able to do before. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 15:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically this isn't a quickfail (a fail with an incomplete review), but just a regular fail; I did check for all the criteria. Since there are problems with the tone and approach of the article as a whole, it seems to me best that this be re-examined and fixed outside of the review process.
 * I'll admit my response is also colored by having dealt with the same problems in your Cory Booker nomination a year ago--that also had what seemed to me a conspicuous absence of criticism, a heavy reliance on press releases by the candidate, and unsourced statements and comparisons by Wikipedia editors. We didn't have any luck cleaning it up in a 10-day review, unfortunately, though that's understandable as I recall you were doing university finals at the time. (I do see you got him up to GA later, which is terrific--thanks for sticking with that.) Opening another one at random you have in the queue--Talk:Sean Patrick Maloney/GA1--it seems to have had the same no-criticism issue, which suggests that this is something you need to work on in the future before nominating instead of after.
 * I apologize if it seems like I'm being hard on you; I know you've worked hard and I don't mean to disrespect that. It's a shame we don't have a better turnover time at GAN so it wouldn't be a big deal to say, "okay, review, revise, and renominate", but there's not much I can do about the GA backlog as a whole. What I can do is post on your behalf at WT:GAN asking for a speedy review if you renominate this one; there's no reason this should have sat in the queue since July, and I'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again if you renominate. We can also ping the editors involved in your article's peer review; they may still be interested in the topic, and as long as they haven't become major contributors since, it wouldn't be a conflict for them to do the GA review as well.
 * Anyway, thanks for all you do. Even if we may disagree on this article's GA-ness, I really appreciate your work to improve our coverage of East Coast politics. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

"...another big win for editor retention"
K2. I'm never sure how to take these comments when you make them. I know you support WER:Eddy because of all your behind the scenes involvement. I don't want to miss-interpret your criticism of the project as a whole, if that is what you meant. If you could clarify, I would appreciate it. ```Buster Seven   Talk  21:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, definitely not a criticism of the project as a whole--just that thread, which seems to me counter to the spirit of the project. I do get frustrated with those who see the project only as a means to actually drive a class of editors they dislike off of Wikipedia (which seems the message on both sides here), but in this case, I simply thought I'd point out the irony to see if it could defuse the battle. Missed the mark, though, and I apologize for how my remark could be misinterpreted. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. My intention for starting that thread was to begin a discussion about where and how to move the project into a more active role. a discussion/debate about admins was furthest from my mind. But, as it is with many/most threads at WP, they rarely go in the direction the original editor desired. ```Buster Seven   Talk  00:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ohhhh, sorry, I see the miscommunication. Yeah, I meant just the "thread" under the subheader about "anti-admin brigade" and so forth. I didn't mean to complain about your words. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And another
Would you be willing to do the GA nom of Franklin Peale? He showed as a redlink in the gold coin articles and now I've blued it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice! It's tempting, but I think I'm going to leave this one for another reviewer. I try not to do too many by any one person in a row to avoid any perception of bias/favoritism (a "Mrs. Khazar's husband must be above suspicion" approach), and I think I've done your last five or six. I do wish you luck with it though--it's great that you're filling in all these linked subjects. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, drop by my talk when you need a review done. Thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And keep me posted on Carter. I had not thought of him as a standout on free speech.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, will do. It's mostly his post-presidency work with the Carter Center that gets him into WikiProject Human Rights. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Moving Kirkpatrick Chapel to FAC soon
Since you provided a thorough GA review, I just wanted to know your thoughts on what needs to be addressed with the Kirkpatrick Chapel article before proceeding to FAC. If you have a few minutes, I'd appreciate your observations. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I generally don't get involved at FAC, but I do wish you luck with it! Hope to see it on the main page soon. Khazar2 (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

 * Thanks! I'm trying to diet a bit in real life, so pictures of brownies are probably better for me anyway. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, same here Says the person who literally ate a brownie last night... Oops.  Ruby  2010/  2013  16:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

McCook Gazette GAR
Thanks for doing the GAR for McCook Daily Gazette. I apologize for taking so long to respond; I've been travelling in remote corners of Nebraska, and my Internet access has been sporadic and limited.

Assuming that the Gazette gets GA status, it'll be my fourth; and now that I've been through the process four times, it's about time that I started paying back by doing GARs for other people's articles. Some time ago, you mentioned that you might be willing to give me some oversight and feedback on that. If you're still interested in doing so, and if it wouldn't overload your current schedule, could you please drop me a line and let me know? Thanks. Ammodramus (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for setting up the mentorship page. I'm currently working through the GA guidelines and other links you've given me, making sure that I've got a good handle on them.  I don't really know the guidelines that well-- I've just tried to write the best articles that I could, and used the GA process as a means of finding out how they needed to be improved.  Before I start doing GARs, I want to make sure that what I do is well grounded in policy.  Once I've familiarized myself with those, I'll try the quiz at the mentorship page and then get back to you; that'll probably be within a few days.  Ammodramus (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Fucking Machines thanks
Thank you for your helpful edits to Fucking Machines.

Cheers,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It was just a single duplicate word, but you're welcome. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you come across any other secondary sources discussing the subject, particularly the aspects of it related to freedom of speech, feel free to let me know, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I just realized...
Wait, you're the same Khazar whose GA nomination of Azimzhan Askarov I reviewed back in 2011? I had no idea! It appears that might have been your first GA? That's amazing, especially since you're now one of the GA reviewers I most want to emulate. What a long, crazy journey. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's crazy! I totally didn't remember that was you, either. And the funny thing is, just the other day I was thinking about what a hard time I was giving everyone around the time of that review, since I was feeling generally frustrated with Wikipedia over DYK drama and considering quitting (I think I actually did quit for a few months after that). You gave me a very nice barnstar, as I recall, and it was indeed my very first GA. So thanks for the kind words, then and now! It really did make a difference in my deciding to come back and get involved with GA instead. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

For your guidance so far as a GA Recruiter and guide

 * Hey, thanks! It's my pleasure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Invitation!

 * Thanks, that's very kind of you to invite me onboard! I have to admit it's not a special area of interest to me, but I do appreciate everything y'all are doing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * My pleasure! We miss you too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Eurovision review
Hi Khazar2, I'm glad you looked at the 2011 Eurovision article, as you raised some things which are also important for me and I expressed to some extant in the past, mainly artistic-show-songs details and reception, as well as there are few more things that I would be happy to know your thoughts about and if you find as good editions and further-better stylized. I invest in putting artistic concept and stage design use and function within the show's performances on Eurovision articles as I find it most interesting; At the Eurovision 2013 article I put info on the artistic feature of location-choosing and added info to the graphic design section, that highlighted some performances with the stage mobility and geographic location of the host city, for example. This was of course agreed as upgrading the article, and as you know that article overall had a lot of work from various users and managed quite easily to gain "GA", which of course I am happy about. The problem with the 2011 article, apart from the issues you mentioned, is that it also still has some manual of style differences compared to the 2013 article and other articles. I didn't manage to comment on the 2013 article which already passed "GA", as I noticed it only yesterday. So I want to raise few more things and ask you at this chance - weather these are also related to "GA" criteria or at least can improve the article, and for your general opinion. There were also several things I raised in the past (also in regards to more artistic-show focus) but didn’t progress within discussions from lack of communication and participants. I would be happy if you can. Let me know and I will post on the 2011 article talk page under your review – things you may see feat for enriching and stylize, and clarify some issues, if you have time and can. אומנות (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation. The review is probably enough to express my concerns, so after this I'll leave it to more regular editors of that article to decide how/if they want to implement them. I do wish you luck in your work on it. Thanks for your edits, Khazar2 (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand. :) Thank you for your quick reply and your appreciation. אומנות (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * My pleasure! -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Award for Musical instrument
Wow, thanks! I didn't even know the Half Million Award was a thing. Maybe some day I'll try to push it up to FA status, but the prospect is quite daunting. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. And yes, I was amazed that you got such a diverse subject even to GA! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You have done some very admirable work in GA, especially the human rights topics. I think I see why you've been visiting the Ban Ki-moon article! -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yeah, I think I'm about two weeks from being able to nominate United Nations. I might try to knock off United Nations Security Council while I have all these books out from the library, too... we'll see... Good luck with Ban Ki-moon, it'd be a shame to see that fall out of FA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you so much for your kind comments on the work of my students, and your speedy review of the good article nomination. I appreciate your suggestions and will come back soon with a more detailed response and questions. DStrassmann (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Country music
Good job with the wording in your review of Country Music. I did a whole lot a editing on that one addressing the early years, which was my main interest. It's troubling to keep deleting things that are not referenced, etc. and EXTREMELY time consuming to find suitable material as a replacement. I appreciate your well chosen words and especially the link to the times viewed page. It might even be enough to motivate me to do more work on that article, although I have a bunch of stuff I'm working on. Mostly though, again, nicely done. Steve Pastor (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm really glad to hear you might get back to it, and thanks for all you've already done. I'm not knowledgeable enough in this area to contribute content directly, but do ping me if there's any other way I can be of help in bringing it to GA. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your reasoning - the article has 89 citations! How is that insufficient? 18:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)teratogen (talk)
 * It's not a question of a minimum number of citations, but whether all the important information is cited. GA requires inline citation for, at a minimum, all statistics/figures and all interpretation/analysis. And as I said, the lead is also an obvious problem. You can read the full GA criteria at WP:GA?; it would be a good idea to check the article against those, and also conferring with editors of the article, before renominating it.
 * Thanks again for being willing to take on a big topic, and good luck with your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)