User talk:Khazar2/Archive 16

Discussion taking place at WP:ANI
Hi Khazar, I though it only courteous to inform you of a complain that I have lodged at WP:ANI regarding a user who I feel has been purposely hounding me for sometime now. The most recent being at the GA review for ESC 2011 which you kindly reviewed. I've had to address evidence to support my complaint, and as the GA review is mentioned in that, I think it is only fair that you should be aware, in case you wish to address any observations of your own. Sincere regards, Wesley   Mᴥuse  18:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me; I'm not familiar with the situation beyond seeing the back-and-forth at the ESC2011 GA, though, and will likely sit it out. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
The article Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark Miller -- 22:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Army Ants
Hey. I am the student that wrote the behavioral sections to the army ant article. One of my classmates nominated it without consulting me and I know you failed it. I was wondering if you could give me some other suggestions other than adding sources on the section that the pervious author wrote. I'll be working on expanding the sections and citations in the coming few weeks. Thanks! Pocketkings (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The numerous very short sections are discouraged per WP:LAYOUT, which is part of the GA criteria. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
The article Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark Miller -- 04:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Freedom of speech - for peer review
I've placed Portal:Freedom of speech up for portal peer review. Comments would be welcome, at Portal peer review/Freedom of speech/archive1. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Portal:Freedom of speech
 * Good luck with it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World
Hi there, thanks very much for taking on the GA Review for this article!
 * Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World

I've read through your suggestions at Talk:Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World/GA1.

They were all good recommendations so I just implemented them all, and noted it point-by-point back at the GA Review subpage, Talk:Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World/GA1.

Perhaps you can revisit at your convenience, no rush.

Thanks again,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. Today may be a bit crazy for me but I'll finish my reading tomorrow at the latest. It looks very good so far and I don't anticipate any serious problems for GA status. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about a GA nomination
Hi. Hope you're doing well. I hate to bother you with more questions about GA reviewing, but I still consider you my mentor and I hope it's OK to pop up every now and then. I was doing an initial reading of a nominated article Scottish literature in the Middle Ages, when I realized that it's almost completely a copy-and-paste of an extract from another WP article Scottish literature. Is this grounds for a quickfail? It's not the first time I've come across one article that cannibalizes another article, and I often wonder why there are two articles when one would suffice. On the other hand, I suppose it's possible that the shorter article came first and was copied into the longer article, but the edit history appears to indicate the opposite. Also, I've found at least two instances where there's extended cut-and-paste from a third, independent source copyrighted 2006, and therefore predating both articles which contain the apparently plagiarized lines. So I'm a bit uncertain how to proceed. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Man, you've got a nose for complicated cases! But good work ferreting this out. Let me address these issues separately.
 * As for the in-Wikipedia copying, Copying within Wikipedia gives guidance on how this situation should be handled. My guess is that this is SabreBD primarily copying from her/himself, so this isn't as big a deal as it may first appear. (SabreBD is making an astonishingly prolific wikicareer out of "X in Scotland" articles). But it is important that the subarticle clearly attribute its text to the master article. This can be accomplished with a note on the talk pages of each article. You should point SabreBD to this guideline, too, to make sure s/he's aware for the future. But I wouldn't see this as an issue for GA status, since it's easily resolved by more clearly acknowledging the source.
 * As for the overlap between the articles, I wouldn't worry about that as a GA reviewer; technically, notability is not part of our remit, and I only take a nomination to AfD in exceptionally glaring cases.
 * The third issue, the extended cut-and-paste, is cause for concern and probably grounds for quickfail, depending on its extent and your confidence in the rest of the article. In my experience, finding some cut-paste often means there's more in places that are less easy to check. I'd also take into account that Sabre has only been waiting a week for this review, so a quickfail wouldn't set her/him back months. (I'm always much faster on the quickfail with submissions four days old than four months old, on the assumption that the nominator can simply renominate when the issue is corrected even if it proves an easy fix). My starting assumption would be that the cut-paste text is something SabreBD unknowingly inherited rather than personally added, but you can check this quickly with a tool like WikiBlame or Article Blamer.
 * Anyway, I'll watchlist the review so I can jump in if technical assistance or a second opinion is needed. And feel free to come by with questions any time! I still ask stuff from other reviewers all the time myself. Thanks for all your reviewing, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd been tracking another of your reviews at Hud, by the way, and saw that the reviewer requested a month's hold. That's not totally unreasonable, but procedurally I think it's simpler to have a review open indefinitely; my suggestion would be to close the review for now (unless it's ready to pass or Gato's looking to step in immediately) and just tell GDuwen you'll be willing to continue the review as soon as it's renominated. Thanks for your work on that one, too! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Award
Thanks, I've been trying to complete a little bit those articles. The classics always deserve a fair treatment.-- GD uwen    Tell me!   18:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You input is valued
...@ User talk:Go Phightins!. ```Buster Seven   Talk  08:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Closing a couple of reassessments
Hello Khazar! Just to ask, can you close the two discussions about reassessing the Iced Earth albums? I've informed both reviewers and the nominator two weeks ago, but they appear to be inactive this time around. However, there has been some debate regarding the issues and I believe you can make a decision based on the arguments from both sides. Thanks and everything best. Postscriptum, the links: Talk:The Dark Saga/GA2 and Talk:Something Wicked This Way Comes (Iced Earth album)/GA2.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually can't close those myself, as they're individual reassessments rather than community ones--it's up to you. But in both cases you seem to be clearly supported by others. I think you'd be fine to close them yourself per the instructions at WP:GAR. If someone strongly disagrees, they can always appeal to a community reassessment. Good work finding both of these! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll close the reassessments. Thanks for the helpful advice, it is always appreciated.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I almost forgot, where do you find what number to put in action2oldid? --Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can actually help with this. It's a complicated process, but someone came up with a script to make it easier. I now regularly update oldids for instances that LegoBot misses. (Though in many cases, if you leave it be, Legobot will come and update it.) Feel free to ping me if you see a missing oldid or other messed-up article history. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, can you point me to that script? I'd love to have it, those are a pain to fill in. Thanks as always for your help, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. The script is at User:Dr pda/articlehistory.js, with instructions at its talk page. Once it's installed, I go to the talk page of an article, click "Article history" in the toolbox, and click "Click here to enter a date manually" at the top of the page. I enter the date I want, and it tells me the most recent oldid for the article before the date in question. Then I simply copy-and-paste it in. I received further (sometimes confusing) instructions and tips at User talk:Maralia, which may be informative for you as well. – Quadell (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Terrific, thanks. I'll give this a run next time I'm closing GARs. I realize it's lazy of me but I've often been leaving the oldid parameter blank when filling in that template. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:15, 21 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 Cirt -- 18:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Need help. Not urgent!
Hi. I hope you are well. I nominated this article which was viewed 136,166 times in the last 90 days for GA. I have tried my best to improve this article. As the top-of-the-queue article under 'Law' subtopic was nominated on 27 July 2013 to GA, I think it would take 4 months from now for this article to be even considered. I wish to shift my attention to another article. I would very much appreciate if you could take a look, if it's in your area of interest. It's not urgent at all. Thank you so much for being so kind and accessible. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  00:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's always hard to predict the GA queue; you're right that it might be four months, but it also might only be a few days. In either case, though, you should feel free to start work on another article while that one is waiting; many editors have 2-5 articles in the queue because of the backlog.
 * I may try to review that one for you, as it sounds interesting, but I'll have to take a better look at it first. I'm not that knowledgeable about Indian politics or law and may not be the best reviewer for it. In any case, though, thanks for working on this high-traffic topic! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time and attention to this matter. I will focus now entirely on another article. In case you start devoting time to this GA nominee, I would be really glad to assist you in any way I could. Thank you so much for your help and your active reviewing to reduce backlog on GA queue: Mahaleo, North Coast Hiawatha, Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia, Yadier Molina. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  12:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Teach me AWB
Can you please teach me its features? I know how to disambiguate and fix typos using regex typos but nothing other than that.  Sohambanerjee1998  09:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't do anything without it beyond typo-fixing myself. You might ask at WT:AWB if there's a particular feature you'd like to use, or if anyone has suggestions for other ways you could be using it. Always glad to meet somebody else interested in cleaning up the little stuff--sorry I couldn't be more help, Khazar2 (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway.  Sohambanerjee1998  15:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Ip Man 2 GA
Hi, Khazar2 thanks for undertaking the Ip Man 2 review, I have just read it and I will try and fix all the points you have raised. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your interest in this article--good luck with revisions! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

A doubt!
Hi. I hope you are well. I hope it's okay if I seek your guidance every now and then and appear on your talk page, as I consider you my mentor. I have a doubt. I wish to take up one GA nominee for review. I haven't done any before. The nominator/contributor has a long list of GAs and also few FAs. The subject matter of the article interests me and I think I can pull it through with some background research. Should my lack of experience with GA reviewing deter me from taking an article nominated by much more experienced Wikipedian? I would really appreciate if you could offer some tips based on your experience. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  14:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, questions always welcome. Technically, anyone can open a GA review at any time, but it's best to either pass a GA or two of your own first, or work through the WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre. The first approach means you've had some experience and demonstrated you know the basics. The second approach means that you have an experienced reviewer working with you. You might see if anyone there is available to work with you at this time. (I'm not, unfortunately, since I have two mentees already right now). Best -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for being always there to help. Although it would be really exciting to work under your guidance, I would not prefer to cause exertion on your schedule and plans. I will visit the Recruitment Center and see if I can find some help. Thanks again. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  15:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A Void
Oh, do my sights dumbfound this scriptor? A plot summary, doubling that lipogrammatic limit in A Void? Forsooth, it is amazing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 26-11-2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, that's most good--a cunning contributor, that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is truly fantastic. Do you think our community could bring it up to "Good" status, or at long last transform it into a FA? I wish, but who knows? I don't think I, on my own, could bring up such motivation to do that much work (and truthfully, my writing skill has its limits too). – Quadll (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly amazing, but most difficult, I'd think. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Just another interested GA recruit looking for advice
Salutations, I've been interested in this for quite some time now and thought I'll ask you for guidance first. I want to learn to review general topics, and not restricted to any area. Currently, WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/List of Recruiters has only three recruiters available where two of them review only particular topic ranges and the third one is 'available' but has quite a bit of students to deal with.

I think this is probably the reason there has been a preference for the other recruiters but I don't mind be recruited by anyone, just that I'm interested to be able to review general topics. Is this important while selecting a recruiter and I put my name in the waiting list or choose someone now...What do you recommend? Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ugog, sorry for the slow response--I'm really glad to hear you're interested in GA reviewing. I'd think almost anyone would be happy to mentor a general-interest reviewer, but I can't say for sure. I'd start with the mentors who don't currently have a mentee, and ask if they'd be interested in working with you. (I'd offer, but I have two mentees at the moment, which is my practical limit). Good luck with it, and thanks again, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

CAR conflict
Theres some massive instability going on there now (and largely off the news radar). We need an article on this. But I was wondering what to call it? There is one about the 2012-2013 conflict but thats seperate and leading to Bozizes removal.

Would CAR conflict under the Djotodia administration work? (Lihaas (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)).
 * Sorry for the slow response. I've read a few recent news stories, but I'm not really familiar enough with the conflict to chime in intelligently on this. Thanks for your work on this--I'm always glad somebody's keeping up on African current events for us. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for...

 * My pleasure, it was well deserved! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Re Yadier Molina page
Khazar, thanks for the Molina page GA eval. Now that is out of the way, I'm thinking about translating the page into Spanish. I was very surprised to learn none exists for him. I don't know how good you are with your Spanish, but once I get that rolling having your input would be great. Re the Freese trade, it will be a great opportunity to reset for him and should be a great trade for the Cardinals. With the Peralta signing, the Cardinals are nearly set for next season. If anything more needs done, it would be great to see a right-handed power bat for the bench. --Elcid.ruderico (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's my take too. It's hard to imagine how the team could be more set for a playoff run than they seem to be now, but of course baseball is baseball, so who knows.
 * Unfortunately, I don't speak much Spanish and can't be much help there. I think it's terrific that you're interested in doing this, though; I bet that's a high-traffic page at the Spanish wiki. Good luck with it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It has begun
So, looks like it's on! My #1 goal for December is to do one review a day, the same as your 2013 goal. (My #2 goal, of course, is to force you and to have to take out second mortgages to fund your pledges. {) Best of luck! – Quadell (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, c'mon, I needed that 93 cents! Good luck to you too, glad to hear you're going for so many! I was just looking at my own schedule and wondering if I was going to make it... we'll see-- Khazar2 (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're gonna make me broke! :) I'm glad that you've decided to set such an ambitious goal. Edge3 (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Need advice!
Hi. I need advice based on your experience on Wikipedia. It's about this GA nominee. If you check the edit history of this page, all of a sudden this user is making substantial deletion of content which appears to me vandalism. On checking the contribution page of this user, it appears that s/he has been deleting content quite substantially to other pages also and has been involved in conflicts. This user doesn't have a user page, the contribution list has a lot of red marks and also the account is about two months old. Although I contributed significantly to this page, I don't consider it as 'my' page so there are no personal issues. However I also don't want to involve in any discussion due to time constraints. Also if I keep on reverting the deletions it would also lead to so called 'edit war'. Should I leave the page to the good judgement of Wikipedia administrators and other users. I would very much appreciate if you could advise me the best approach in such a situation given the time constraints. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  06:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like this editor was blocked for this behavior, so I'd say feel free to revert. Their concerns may or may not be legitimate, but they don't have any right to insist that you have to explain all your actions on the talk page but they don't. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)