User talk:Khazar2/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Gary Johnson review

Thanks for the review, granting of GA status, and the barnstar! yonnie (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, thanks for writing it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/GatherSpace

Hello, I wanted to invite you to comment on this AfD, WP:Articles for deletion/GatherSpace, given that you previously edited the article. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Subject you may be interested in

Hi Khazar, perhaps you'd be interested in writing (if you're feeling healthy) something like Death penalty for migrant workers in the Middle East or whatever unwieldy title matches. From The Jakarta Post: 280 Indonesian migrant workers on death row in the Middle East; most "found guilty on charges of murder, drug smuggling and using black magic", and some "were found guilty of killing their employers to fend off rape attempts". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty wild. I've got a lot of projects running at the moment, but I'll put it on my to-do list. Thanks for showing me this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I thought you'd find it interesting. I may just do it as Migrant workers in Saudi Arabia, which would have a slightly different scope. ITN/C has an example from Sri Lanka right now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That seems like an even better idea. I know there's lots of material out there on migrant workers there generally. Ping me if you do create it, I'll be glad to try to pitch in. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks like an interesting one. Have you seen it? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not yet :-( It may be relatively easy to find, if I look (I think it's on YouTube) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Khazar2. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
  • Mentioned you here, related to the above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Johnson

Regarding this, although I did not write that phrase, I think it's worth keeping. This was no normal election, and that should be stressed to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The previous sentence talks about secession, so I think it probably doesn't need further repetition; it's not a big deal to me either way, though. Feel free to restore for now if you like. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I did. It's the sort of thing I'll give up on if there's further concern though. The other changes look fine though I tweaked one or two of them. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
After further thought, I've removed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
It's fantastic to see you helping other editors keep their spirits up (and nice that you've almost done more GA reviews than me in less time). BTW, I'm working on my own paper (again...); if you want a read, I'll send it to you when I'm done. In the meantime...  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be glad to take a look. And thanks! So far I've really enjoyed GA reviewing; aside from a few dump-and-run submissions by first-time editors from college courses, seems like almost everyone there is a dedicated content contributor, and I'm learning a lot reading their articles. Also seems to have the best content-to-drama ratio of any part of WP I've worked in, which is a nice bonus; the one-to-one set-up avoids the long-term clashes of personalities that seem to build up in the other projects. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Just so long as you avoid WT:GAN when the threads start piling up. That link up there's just to show you the new plot section, which I finally fleshed out. I think you've read that already. BTW, discussion at Talk:Saudi Arabia seems to be heading towards the creation of an article on foreign workers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yep, that's the plan--not even on my watchlist. The DDD article seems to be coming along nicely, kudos. The images are a new addition, too, right? -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Right, the only free image we have of Usmar Ismail (although there's probably more if I bother to go the archives) and a free ({{PD-text}}) screengrab. I added Saudi Arabia after looking at a case on AN/I, a bit of edit warring there. Argh... as I said to MRG, never a boring day on Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Reportero

Hey. The movie wasn't available for me for the past few days until I checked a while ago, so I'm barely going to watch it. Thank you and enjoy the week! ComputerJA (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't gotten around it yet either, actually--sick wife and kiddo. Tomorrow the latter at least is back to daycare so perhaps Mrs. Khazar can be talked into some Mexican journalism. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
That's very unfortunate; it's that time of the year when everyone gets sick ... I was sick on and off during the whole break, probably because I'm not use to cold weather (55F, LOL).
Enjoy the film. It's pretty good, and there were some rare clips and facts I didn't know about. Cheers. ComputerJA (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Scullin review

Thanks for your thorough and well thought-out review of my James Scullin article. I'm sorry I did not notice the review sooner, but regardless there is clearly some work to be done to bring it up to scratch. When I am more at liberty I really hope to be able to make this at least GA worthy, and yes, I will certainly be glad for your assistance at a future stage. I have been on wikipedia for ages on the sidelines and now am making a concerted effort to contribute more meaningfully, and I feel this is best done by contributing at least GAs, and hopefully FAs eventually. Thanks again, Unus Multorum (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, and I'm glad to hear you're going to continue working on it. GAs or FAs on some of these Australian political topics would be a huge contribution! Feel free to drop by here anytime with questions, and once you've started revisions on Scullin, I'd be glad to give it another readthrough if you'd like more comments before renominating. Your work is very appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Foreign workers

I've started the page, probably gonna go at it for another hour at least. Webcite isn't working right now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I love that site, but hate how often it goes down. I'm going to finish an expansion at Pauli Murray and some open GA reviews, but should be able to pitch in on that tomorrow morning/afternoon US time. Thanks for starting it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't mention it. I'll try and get this to about 3k or so tonight. The DYK nomination can wait until it's a little more fleshed out. I have a test on poststructuralism tomorrow *weep* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Good luck! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Alright, 3.5k characters is good enough for now. I think the abuse/scandal section is looking the best... but we need some positive stuff. I left a prospective outline at Talk:Foreign workers in Saudi Arabia. The Human Rights Watch source still has some good stuff. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy birthday, MLK

And thanks, Khazar2, for your work on the Martin Luther King, Jr. article. There's so much material, we could work on it forever, but it's great to see some progress made towards concision and clarity. I'm hoping to chip in ASAP. Love, groupuscule (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Can't believe this one hasn't been brought up to at least GA status long before this, but perhaps editors have been intimidated by the prominence of the article? Anyway, it'll be great to try to take it the rest of the way. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to add a thanks for your work on the Martin Luther King, Jr. article, thus far. After getting it up to GA status, I hope you will consider the RFK article. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Hoping that one will be done soon. I'd love to tackle RFK at some point in the future, though for now the goal is to get through all of the most popular WP:WikiProject Human Rights articles. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Technical Question about how to edit

I have an idiot question. I found a typo in a reference here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Castiglione_(Jesuit) (The correct spelling is Richard Barnhart) But I don't understand the format that the reference is, so I can't correct it. Curious1949 (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Not idiot at all! I fixed it--looks like the title also had a misspelling. You can see more detailed explanation at how reference templates work at Wikipedia:Citing_sources, if you like. The short version is that the template has a certain number of parameters that you fill in (author=, title=, date=, etc.), and it spits out the citation in a certain format. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi!

Hey Khazar, good job with MLK. Glad to see you up to some heavy lifting. If you like the environment, you may find The Mirror Never Lies a good read (although not nearly as influential).

As to my main point... Tom Hanks meets Meg Ryan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm on some new meds that seem to be helping me read for longer periods, which has obviously been a help in research. And on the same note, I'll look forward to reading those, too... -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There's one last one I'm doing now. I kinda like it, although I doubt one could get it published in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Eh, f*** the US, then. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh - Thank you for the Barnstar.!

Thank for the star and am getting on with creating a whole set of pages for the Amnesty International UK Media Awards - Award Types - Awards by year - you can get an idea by accessing the Work in progress from Here. It's taking some time having to both research back into the a 22 year history or awards ... and check all the relevant and present realities. The best one so far is finding an electronic press release from 1992 ... doesn't sound much, but the net had only been public for a few months, so that makes it like finding and intact mammoth in Siberian Ice! P^) In net terms It's ancient and like an artefact from ancient Egypt.

I have noticed that there are a number of neglected and badly managed Human Rights related articles that will need to link to the new pages and updated content - and I will evidently be busy long after the ground works are finished. I'm updating some of the most egregious issues as I progress ... but it is all very messy and the Bias (Systemic is far too gentle a word) is quite shocking as well as disturbing! If I flagged every page I found there would be an extra 200 plus at the moment on the hit list - and I've only back checked from 2000 to 1992 - 9 years and the infancy of the Net so a limited level of data and pertinent sources have been found. BUT, if I find yet another page with references to US centric awards with links that cite none us awards and which have been "Deliberately" ignored by the editor ... I may just scream and consider if all US editors should be required to declare a complete conflict of interest on all Wiki content! At times the deliberate omission are beyond shocking.

Again - Thanks for the Barnstar - I had no idea there was one for Human Rights - and there is a desperate need for a Barnstar dealing with Systemic Bias! ... in fact a full constellation or galaxy may be needed ... Hmmmm the "Galactic Barnstar for Countering Systemic Bias" ... has a ring to it! P^) --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome; thanks again for your work. I saw some of it in your sandbox via your contributions page and am looking forward to seeing it go "live". And I agree, lots of human rights related articles are simply a disaster, especially anything outside the US/UK. You know, if you haven't already, you should think about signing up for WP:WikiProject Human Rights; it's a pretty quiet WikiProject, but a few of us are trying to get it more active again. A lot of university students writing articles seem to drop by there, too. In any case, keep it up, and happy editing! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
What? - University students with library access and articles on tap? I could get used to that! A private reference army ... just what is needed! P^) --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not to mention a lot of people who read different languages :-) (you know, in case you want to cover Russia or something) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Message received

Hello, Message recieved. Oh well, yeah, I just usually don't do a whole lot but when it comes to quotes and commas and periods, I'm trying to get those right. In England, they do different, so now I have to go back to a page and change some stuff back. I'm not writing any whole pages yet, but good luck on yours.IraChesterfield (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There's an endless need for good copyediting on Wikipedia, so thanks for your efforts! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Pullies to pulleys

I am curious why you and others keep attempting to change the item 'woolly pullies' to 'woolly pulleys' using AWB in the article Royal Observer Corps. This has happened several times in recent years and although it is easily fixed it remains a nuisance. A pulley is an item of mechanical equipment used in a block and tackle ... it bears no relation whatsoever to the British rhyming abbreviation for pullover (or jumper). Can the AWB spellcheck be amended to take this into account? Many thanks. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 02:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I caught AWB's mistake and left the "pullies" spelling in the article, but didn't realize AWB still put that change in the edit summary. (Unless I'm overlooking a second instance?) Sorry for any confusion that caused. If this has happened before, one thing that would stop AWB from picking it up would be an invisible sic template. I'll add one in a moment. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you hadn't actually changed it this time but others have before. Thank you for your efforts, much appreciated. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 03:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Named reference help on Palestine-Israel page

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Thank you for the way you've managed this.--Soulparadox (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome--but the thanks really belongs to the wizards who design WP:AWB! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons) at WP:GA

Hey, just a heads up, I found the correct section for listing this: Board, card and role-playing games. It's pretty tiny and hence easy to miss, but hopefully I'll continue filling it up. Cheers. —Torchiest talkedits 22:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks for double-checking that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem. On a related note, I just noticed your user page's links section for referencing. That is excellent. —Torchiest talkedits 23:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I find it handy to have those to cut-and-paste with. Saves a lot of time when I'm on an editing binge... -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You're not the only one. For pages I cite often (the database filmindonesia.or.id comes to mind) I just copy existing cites and change the parameters as necessary. BTW, how's MLK going? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It's on the home stretch, thanks. The article got a burst of activity on MLK Day (two days ago) so I think the reviewer's giving it a day or two to make sure everything's stable. Seems like we're just about there, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Lol. This is a great example of why I voted for the feedback tool's death in the latest RfC on it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • As Tom Clancy says, to paraphrase, if they had polls back in Biblical times Jesus would have gone back to carpentry. You've done a fantastic job. BTW, there's yet another RFC — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Honestly, that one was pretty much ready to go. I just did a copyedit, cleaned out a bit of dead wood (movies, trivial awards, etc.), and nudged it toward the goal line. Be great to see it get up there, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I normally steal old citations I've built and modify them, but having the date automatically up-to-date is super fancy and useful. I also cite HighBeam a ton so I'll be copy/pasting from here a bunch now. That feedback is pretty funny and sad btw. —Torchiest talkedits 02:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

James Innes GAN

Khazar, I believe I have addressed your concerns at Talk:James Innes (North Carolina)/GA1. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the article. Cdtew (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks for getting to that so fast! I'll take a look tonight or tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for bringing Martin Luther King, Jr.‎ to Good Article status. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Wow, you're fast. =) Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Already? amazing. this year is gonna be one of the best for human rights related articles. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The Yew Tree Ball

Thank you for your interest. I've rewritten the article. It's too brief for GA nomination. Please "take a look". Thanks! Oregonian2012 (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Trivial?

You're out of date, bud. You should've checked the links to the professor, his conspiracy and blogs when you had the chance. --Pawyilee (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I did actually click through. Can you explain a little more clearly why you think the comments section of this blog is encyclopedic material? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The "trivial" remark irked me, but now I've clicked through to your user page, and am suitably impressed. I'm not a scholar but a sciolist, with only a pretense of knowledge. Countering Systemic Bias in Lèse majesté in Thailand was my aim, but I don't know how to go about it. The block quote I appended to the list of current cases gave a link to a Bangkok Post article (now behind a paywall) expressing puzzlement as to why the current administration is not tackling the issue of change, and an Isaan Record footnote: "In response to a question we posed to a particularly influential Red Shirt leader about lèse-majesté reform, the woman said, 'This is something that is simply not in the Red Shirts’ interests at this time and that is all I would like to say about that.'" Thailand could rightly be said to be anachronistic with respect to human rights, but nothing in the article gives evidence as to why this is so. Volokh is a legal scholar, his blog is respected for its approach legal issues, which in this case he tagged as Defamation and Blaspheme. The name of commentator Jim Gutel is not linked to a bio, but a quick look at DuckDuckGo indicates a minister of some standing, and his comment relates to the latter in a way as to put blaspheme into context; my link to the 4th Commandment went directly to Jewish scholarly commentary. Of only two articles I've started, one is that of Edmund Roberts (diplomat). He arrived near the end of the reign of Rama III, the last king of whom it could rightly be said to have been held by many of his subjects to BE a god. I've yet to expand the section on Siam as I don't know how to go about it. You're likely familiar with the saying, "Fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom," but in Rama III's time that's where it ended: everyone from the king on down was governed by fear; Roberts in his journal gives several examples from his own observations; his cosmological view did not encompass the Mandala (Southeast Asian political model), which is of recent scholarship and does not address the issue of the central power exercising god-like powers. Sacred king is the only article of its kind that I know of, and does not address the issue. Legal history does not address it with respect to Southeast Asia, though the section of South Asia is pertinent. This quote casts some light on the matter:

This "thii tam thii soong" concept also demonstrates itself in the honorific system of the language. Vocabulary used in relation to the royalty requires an extra effort and is learned only by those who have to work with the king and queen and the royal family. Since not all princes and princesses enjoy the same status, different sets of pronouns as well as nouns and verbs are used according to their royal ranks and titles. LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES OF THAI CULTURE

--Pawyilee (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Including Volokh might be okay, but he himself had almost nothing to say about the case; he's just reposting the Bangkok Post story and saying he knows nothing about it. Anyway, if this is a significant opinion about the Somyot case, it shouldn't be hard to find a clearly significant advocate for this opinion (i.e., an article appearing in a significant publication, not a passing comment on a blog by an American who once lived in Thailand). If we need to cite something this marginal to work an opinion into an article, that's usually a sign that the opinion is also so marginal that it shouldn't be included. Remember that the goal here is not to put together independent analysis, but simply to summarize how professionals in the field (academics, reporters, etc.) cover the issue.
As far as addressing systemic bias on Thailand lese majeste topics broadly goes, it seems to me that the ideal solution is not to add more American commentators to the article, but rather to start balancing them with the opinions of Thai commentators on this topic. That's beyond my own language skills, though. Anyway, thanks for your work on these... -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)(edit conflict) If this opinion is important enough, it would be published some where in a reliable source. Blog sites by themselves could be challenged of being not a reliable source and not notable enough to be given a weight. There is more explained in WP:RS. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I defer to your judgement on Volokh, but it is dangerous for a Thai commentator to comment, for the reasons given in the passing comment on a blog by an American who once lived in Thailand. The one by a native Thai that I DID give was in the deleted block quote for which the source is now behind a Bangkok Post paywall that denies access to WebCite®. As for the Isaan Record footnote with its secondary reference to a native Thai opinion, any objection to adding it here: "September 2011. Computer programmer Surapak Puchaieseng ... arrest marked the first lèse majesté case since prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra was elected"?[1]
  1. ^ Brown, Glenn;; Lizzie Presser (15 May 2012). "The Isaan Record Says Goodbye, for Now". Isaan Record. Archived from the original (News > Commentary) on 2012-05-15. Retrieved 15 May 2012. In response to a question we posed to a particularly influential Red Shirt leader about lèse-majesté reform, the woman said, 'This is something that is simply not in the Red Shirts' interests at this time and that is all I would like to say about that.'{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

--Pawyilee (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think adding the Issan Record quotation to the Somyot P. article probably would be out of place--it's a very minor source that doesn't even appear to address the case directly. I'm not familiar with the publication, but at first look, I'd question whether it can be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Many internationally significant publications have written about Thailand's lese majeste laws, so it seems unnecessary to use a self-published site by some American teachers living there.
My suggestion in improving both the main article on LM in Thailand and the Somyot case specifically would be to move toward more recognized sources: major newspapers and magazines, academic papers from databases, etc. See what these sources have to say and then summarize the major trends or lines of thought. Whatever you decide, though, thanks for your interest in working on these, and on fighting systemic bias generally; our coverage of Thailand is still really spotty, so editors like yourself are a big help. Are you a member of WP:CSB? If not, you should definitely think about joining! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm frankly puzzled as to why someone professing an interest in "systemic bias that naturally grows from ... contributors' demographic groups" keeps asking for sources from demographic groups that have not taken an interest, while blocking access to the few that have. Isaan Record was created by a particular demographic group for the same purpose as another created Asian Correspondent, with the significant difference that the former demographic group risk their freedom by publishing from Thailand and the latter operate from the UK: though the risk of being in Thailand is shared by the latter's Bangkok Pundit and Saiyasombut & Siam Voices Have you clicked through to chilling effect? --Pawyilee (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's try to keep some perspective. The two sources you've proposed adding to the Somyot article are 1) a comment by an unverified user on a blog, presumably American; and 2) an independent website founded by American teachers that lasted for only a year, that doesn't even mention Somyot.[1] Am I blocking Americans as a demographic group? Are you concerned that American opinions are underrepresented on Wikipedia? I feel like I'm losing track of what this conversation is even about.
I'm probably already going into broken record territory, so I'll stop after this, but I wanted to say one more time that the important thing is to try to find quality sources--not a random comment that you scraped off of the wall of somebody's blog because you happen to agree with the sentiment. If tomorrow someone posts on a wordpress site that "Barack and Michelle Obama is big homosexuals, for realz!", should we add that opinion to their articles? There are a million opinions about any subject out there, but the significant ones are those that come from acknowledged professional or expert sources.
If you don't find the above persuasive, I guess we can go to WP:THIRD to get a third opinion about whether that guy's comment on a blog post rises to encyclopedic significance. But for now, I'm going to respectfully beg off-- I respect the vehemence of your views, but I feel like this has turned into a very time-consuming discussion on a very basic point. Sorry I can't help you further with this, and I do wish you luck on future contributions in this area. -- Khazar2 (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I've said I'm not a scholar and would differ to your judgement. I'm sorry I suffer from Asperger syndrome and talk too much. However, you still disparage a commentator with quite a record at DuckDuckGo, and failed to realize you had linked to a WebCite archive of a farewell article from the then-editors of Issan Record. I'm happy to inform you it has resumed publication. Before you render judgement, please ask the Duck about Jim Gutel, and check out About Isaan Record. --Pawyilee (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
PS I may be annoying you, but this discussion has helped me a lot. By clicking thru to the Duck's article, I learned it has !Bang command, and asked Duck to tell me about it. Subsequently, I got links of the kind you seek with !Academic Lèse majesté in Thailand. I hope this repays your putting up with me. --Pawyilee (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry on my end if I was cranky, and I'm glad this discussion has been helpful. I did look at DuckDuckGo per your suggestion, but it doesn't seem relevant to me. First, there's no way to confirm that the blog comment is from the same Jim Gutel. Second, even if it were, there's no reason to consider Jim Gutel an expert on Thailand. Third, even if he was, you'd want to demonstrate that his opinion had been judged as important by a third-party publication--that's not the case on a blog where anyone can post. Try an academic database like JSTOR or Academic Search Complete, searching Google News for recognizable publications like the New York Times or Al Jazeera, or searching Highbeam or Questia if you have access. These are great starting points. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As a former electronics technician, I know that "systemic bias" is vital to system operation — the tricky part is to adjust it properly. NYT & Al-J's bias is necessarily out of sync with Thai bias. I'm biased to "synthesis" — a/k/a leaping to conclusions — so appreciate help from an academician. Gutel's opinion, if not the man himself, is judged as important in the two papers returned by the !Academic command. I cannot afford to buy them so settled for linking both abstracts on the Talk page. I'm biased to think it proper to post them to Further reading, but not how to format entries for academia. Given your bias, perhaps you could handle that. I'm also biased towards including LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES OF THAI CULTURE into the article. And to do as Sacred king does: add "See also" Monarchy_of_Thailand#Sakdina_and_Rachasap. —Pawyilee (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

GA reviews

Please don't forget to update the article's status inside the various project banners. I went ahead and did this for SMS Budapest, but try to keep it in mind. Generally all you have to do is delete all of the B-class assessments and change class to GA.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I remember that 90% of the time, but not always. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review

Sir, I have nominated the article Karnan (film) for GA in the way u asked me to. now can anyone (maybe you) start reviewing it? if there are any faults, I'd like to repair them rather than let the article fail. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for renominating that one. And yep, anyone can review it! I think I may let someone more knowledgeable take this review, though. Good luck and thanks for your work on it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Sir i think u hav many friends on wiki who can review articles well. can u pls consult any of them? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know that I have any who particularly know about South Asian film, but you might ask at WP:WikiProject India or WP:WikiProject Film. Sometimes Good Article reviews have a 1-3 month wait, unfortunately. Good luck with it! I hope the review goes well. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

Hey Khazar2 - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Customer Loyalty (The Office)

I believe I got everything. Thank you very much for reviewing the article!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Azimzhan Askarov

Hi there! I translated your article on Azimzhan Askarov into Uzbek in its entirety. I have nominated the article to Good article status on the Uzbek Wikipedia as well. Thank you for writing about Askarov! You did an amazing job. Nataev (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, that's great to hear. Thanks for the translation and for letting me know! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, how've you been? We haven't spoken in quite some time. =)

I just wanted to ask if there are any ongoing collaborations you're aware of that I might find interesting. Since you're pretty involved in the same sorts of things that I tend towards, I thought you might be able to mention something.

Thanks, and take care. Kurtis (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Doing pretty good--the whole Khazar family is sick with winter colds, but we're sneezing our way through. How about you?
As for collaborations... Over the next few days I'll be working on minor figures from the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration from some books I have checked out, but after that I'll be working on Anonymous (group) to try to get it to GA level. There's a few editors there who have offered to help, too. That one should be ripe for collaboration--a huge popular topic, with almost all its sources available through Google. There's also several editors working to revise Christian Science at the moment, though I think that's winding down. That's all that's on my own radar at the moment but you could always ask at one of the Wiki projects, too. Hope that helps! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
We're doing fine overall here in one of Western Canada's major cities. It's cold where I live (well below -20°C), but I'm feeling pretty well.
Thanks for the heads up, I appreciate it. Lately I've been trying to make improvements to Joseph Stalin. It's a big job to be sure, but it can be done. I find his regime to be fascinating in how horrifically oppressive it was. Kurtis (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Wow, that is a big job. Good luck with it. Yet another article in the "I can't believe we haven't made this a Good Article yet" category. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

If ever you have a GA nomination you need reviewed, let me know. Homunculus (duihua) 22:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reviewing the "Lithium" article. Funny enough right before you made a note rewording the "blew his voice out" bit, I was rereading the section and thought to myself, "Huh, should probably revise that so it's less informal." It's taken care of now. Thanks again for your feedback. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. It's one of Mrs. Khazar's all-time favorites, so she'll be happy to hear about this one in the morning. Despite the hundreds of times I've heard this song, it wasn't until just now that I understood what it was about... -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and if you wish, you can search through Azerrad's book on Amazon.com to double-check my references to that work (though apparently you have to sign in with an account to view more than a few sample pages). And though I do own the DVD, there's fan-uploaded bits of the Classic Albums documentary on the YouTubes if you feel the need to double-check that source too. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Adjusting systemic bias in Thailand

Systemic bias adjustments were needed in Law of Thailand SECTION Sources of Law and in the lede to the Constitution of Thailand before proceeding with the lese one. How'm I doing so far? --Pawyilee (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks okay to me at first glance... -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

You have quite some goals for 2013. =) Thanks for participating in a GA review that overlapped with WP:MEDGA2013. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Rare and enlightening
Thank you for raising awareness for Human Rights and those who suffer fighting for them, people who deserve attention and serve as models! On the day when you achieved your goal, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC) - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I missed the anniversary, - I forgot that you received Precious even before PumpkinSky, the photographer of the sapphire ;) - I keep singing praises, and you get Precious in br'erly style, supporting your goals, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much!! I forgot it was my anniversary, too. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I miss PumpkinSky, again (seems familiar?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: A barnstar for you!

Thank you for kind words and the review. Your remarks helped improve the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You're most welcome. It's nice to see this much high-quality Croatia content going in. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Christian Science

Hi Khazar, just to let you know that I've finished making additional edits to Christian Science for now (except for grammar fixes, etc). There are a few more things I'd like to add, but I'll work on them on a user subpage so as not to disturb the GA review. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Let's give it a few days to make sure this can hold up as a consensus version (knock on wood) and I'll go ahead with the review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Utsuro-bune

Hi. I wanted to put this article on a "good article" nomination, but I don't know in which category I should list it. Do you have any good idea? Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC) PS: please respond at my discussion page, will you? Thank you.

Okay, responded there. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)PS: I put it in here: Miscellaneous.

Capture of USS Chesapeake

Thanks for reviewing the article and for all your help in tidying it up, also for the barnstar - much appreciated. Urselius (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Round robin / round-robin

Hi, I know there are more important matters, but just 'cause "I like (or wanna) know", when should or shouldn't there be a hyphen in "round-robin"? (I see two cases, one used as noun, one as descriptive modifier to "tournament", "event", "format", etc. ... but am not sure it even matters, don't know, and would like to pick your PhD brain to learn! And I guess I'm assuming insertion of "double" doesn't change anything - is it right!?)

Deal is, I think the article Round-robin tournament seems to want to hyphenate it at all costs, but that article seems also riddled w/ inconsistency after awhile, too. (The Glossary of chess#Round-robin tournament just follows what that article did, looks like.) (I'd like to be able to clearn up that article, but first need to know what is right or wrong.)

I think if we can resolve this issue there will be no more war in the world, and no more hunger, either. (But, I could be wrong!) Thanks, and before I leave, do you have any recommend that is your favorite, for a (non-boring &) helpful guide ref for a budding editor in my position (who wants to learn on casual basis and build his editing skills by doing, without going back to school)? Thank you! Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually don't have a good answer to the round robin question, I'm sorry to say. My best guess would be that "round robin" is not hyphenated as a noun, but hyphenated ("round-robin") as an adjective ("round-robin tournament"). Checking some dictionaries, Merriam Webster prefers the spelling "round-robin", American Heritage and dictionary.com prefer "round robin". So I think either answer is okay as long as it's internally consistent.
My usual approach is not to consult a particular style guide but to go to Google and search the New York Times for instances of a phrase; the NYT has a fairly strict and consistent style guide. It's not a perfect solution, but it gives me something correct enough to get by on.
Hope this helps, and thanks for your contributions! I'm always glad to hear from a budding editor, so feel free to drop by any time you have questions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Looking at round-robin tournament, you're right that that article seems to have consistency problems of its own on this issue. You might raise it on the talk page, or be bold and just jump right in. The hyphenated version is clearly a correct answer (if not the correct answer) in all instances, while I'm not sure "round robin" would be correct unhyphenated before another noun. So my own vote would be for hyphenation, FWIW. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks (I'm still digesting your answers ...)! As long as I'm bugging you, and if you will ... When should "Grandmaster" be cap'd, and when shouldn't it? ("A brilliant move by the Yugoslavian Grandmaster Svetozar Gligorich", vs. "A brilliant move by the Yugoslavian grandmaster Svetozar Gligorich"; "I want to introduce you folks to Grandmaster Nakamura" vs. "... to grandmaster Nakamura"; "After success in qualifying matches x, y, z, so_and_so was awarded the FIDE title of Grandmaster"; "There were several grandmasters attending the Mainz Open", etc. (It seems to me s/ be cap'd when referring specifically to the title itself, or used as title appended before a name, but otherwise, lower-case. Is that right?!) Thank u! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I'm not 100% sure about this, but a quick Google check suggests that the New York Times and BBC don't capitalize it in any instance: [2][3][4] I would follow their lead until someone points out a specific Wikipedia MOS guideline that demands otherwise. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I hope this tea makes you feel better.
I am saddened that you couldn't continue to work with me to overcome the issues perceived. Again, I am shocked that even though running the article through Microsoft Word, you found so many issues. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, you didn't do anything wrong, and I appreciated your quick responses. I simply make it a rule to back out of reviews where I have to make or suggest changes to most of an article's sentences, because it starts to cross the line into becoming a contributor to the article (which a reviewer shouldn't be). In this case it'll be easier to take care of the remaining issues outside of the GA system. I don't want to leave you hanging, though; if you don't have any luck getting a copy-editor in a few weeks through the usual channels, give me a ping and I can take a pass. Thanks again for your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I think this closed to soon. I have made changes based on the recommendations at the GAR, and have also made the request at the CEG. I will take this to GAN again!--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way. If you feel that I'm in error and that the article meets GA standards in its current form, it's your prerogative to appeal at WP:GAR. I'm always up for being double-checked. Just at first glance of the article, though, I can see that significant grammatical problems remain in the sections not yet covered:
  • "the next day however, they were authorization to rearm, but an uneasy tension lasted until 5 June 1942" -- should be "authorized"
  • "Many of these discharged soldiers form a Corps of Engineers auxiliary, known as the "Varsity Victory Volunteers", in February 1942." -- inexplicably in present tense
  • "A smaller force held out on Fort Mills, however after an assault, Lieutenant General Wainwright surrendered USAFFE in May 1942" -- comma splice
  • "By the end of the war, Fifty thousand decorations were awarded to assigned personnel of these two regiments." -- "fifty" is capitalized for no reason here
  • " the number of Filipinos who served increase to over 250,000" -- subject/verb agreement problem
  • "Koreans had been able to immigrate to the U.S. since a treaty was signed in 1882,[17] however that ended in 1910, with the annexation of Korea by Japan" -- comma splice
  • " When the war began, Korean Americans met difficulty as enemy aliens, their status changed in 1943, exempting Korean Americans from enemy alien status" -- comma splice
I'm glad to have helped out so far as I did, but I feel that the copyediting problems are so persistent as to exceed the scope of a reasonable GA review, and would be better dealt with outside the GA process. I'm glad to hear you'll be revising and renominating, though. I appreciate and admire your work on this one and will look forward to seeing it as a Good Article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

US public opinion.

Hi,

I haven't come across anything specific on the loss of the Chesapeake affecting US public opinion. Though it undoubtedly did. I imagine that it was one of a number of factors. During the Napoleonic Wars, before the outbreak of the War of 1812, American merchant shipping had seen a really enormous boom. All this stopped with the British blockade, even refitting some fast ships and schooners for use as privateers didn't bring back an appreciable amount of the lost income. The US war aims had been frustrated, the US invasions of Canada were largely unsuccessful; some of the New England states, most badly hit by the blockade, were threatening to secede from the union. Plus Maine had been invaded and occupied. Finally, the end of war in Europe meant that Britain could concentrate all of its war effort in the North American theatre. All in all the US had more to lose than to gain by prolonging the war. Urselius (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That's about what the Unger book said, too; coming after the losses in Canadian land battles, the Chesapeake incident sparked widespread public anger. (You can see a preview in Amazon if you're curious.) If I see anything else, I'll add it in. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing work over at Nelson Mandela

Dear Khazar. I recently came across your user page through your excellent work undertaking GA reviews, and found that you were interested in bringing the Nelson Mandela page up to GA status. This is also something which I am determined to do, particularly as I sadly fear that Mandiba will not be with us for too much longer; upon his death, millions of people will no doubt come looking for his page, and I really would like for it to be as good as possible when that day comes. I have made a substantial start on this task, fleshing out the introduction and methodologically building the page from the bottom down using three primary sources; Long Walk to Freedom and two other biographies, Smith's Young Mandela and Sampson's Mandela: The Authorised Biography. I am not yet seeking a peer review or GA review (which it would not yet pass), but if you have a little spare time, I would be honoured if you could take a look at my work and highlight any areas of improvement, or offer any other advice. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be thrilled to help. I agree that given the numerous health scares reported in the past few years, we may be racing the clock on this one, and surely this will skyrocket to one of the most-viewed articles of that year. I'll take a close look in the next few days and see what I can suggest. Thanks for tipping me off that you're working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
No worries, I am glad that you are interested. Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey there Khazar, I just read your message over at my talk page. Most of your comments (on which I agree 100%) refer to stuff that I have not yet worked on; my methodology has been to start from the top of the article and work down, meaning that I am currently just starting to rewrite and properly reference the section dealing with the Rivonia trial. Everything above that is my work; everything below I've barely touched, and think that a lot of it could do with just being deleted. Like so many biographical articles dealing with famous politicans here on Wikipedia, the article lends disproportionate weight to petty and minor controversies and very little to the actual policies that these figures have implemented (the situation is oh so much worse over at Ken Livingstone). Hope you get well soon, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, I figured from the look of it that you were about halfway down. I'll read over what you've done so far later today or tomorrow, and then what I might do is start working my way up from the bottom section by section; then we can meet somewhere around the middle. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey there Khazar. I just noticed that the final paragraph of the introduction has been edited to remove all trace of negative attitudes to Mandela; was this one of your edits or that of a different editor ? By removing such information, I fear that we tip the introduction, and hence the whole article, into POV territory; I have personally met individuals who still denounce Mandela as a terrorist and communist sympathizer, and notable world figures like Margaret Thatcher were known to espouse such views. I think it important that this article reflect them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

That was somebody else a few days ago, citing BLP concerns. I didn't revert because I didn't have the sources at hand to immediately contradict them, but the editor raises a good point that the lead matches up poorly with the body of the article in this case; I think the article discusses Mandela's ambivalent relationship with communists and his use of armed resistance, but not as much the criticism of him for both by others. (I might have missed it, though, it's a long article.) Once we've included a sourced version of this, I agree that it should be restored to the lead. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, I'll try and find some sources that apply. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Colorado Mountain College

Hello, I am looking for help in correcting some factual errors and updates for the Colorado Mountain College page. I see that you made a few edits to the article a while back and thought I'd enlist your help if possible, it would be greatly appreciated! I made several notes and requests on the Talk section of the page including more verifiable references than have been left in the past. What do you think? Thank you for your time.Sqdaily (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's not a subject I have a particular interest in; I just fixed a typo in passing. I wish you all the best in revising it, though! Thanks for your efforts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for responding, I appreciate it! Can you refer me to anyone that might be interested in revising it?Sqdaily (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
You might try posting a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities. But you're welcome to just be bold and try it yourself, too! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hello Khazar, can you please close this nomination? It was my mistake, I should've merged Armenian population by country into Armenian diaspora and then nominated it. Thank you.--Երևանցի talk 02:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help if I could, but I'm sorry to say that I have no idea how to do that. You might check with User:Crisco 1492, though. Good luck with continuing to develop this one! It's great to see all your work in this area. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Alright and thank you! --Երևանցի talk 06:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Break

Whatever you're going into the hospital for, I hope you have a quick and easy recuperation. Take care! —Torchiest talkedits 06:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope you get fine soon. Sincerely. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Best wishes for well-being, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
We will be thinking of you and sending you lots of wikilove during your recuperation. Best, Crtew (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Here's wishing you get a pretty nurse, and a competent doctor (not necessarily in that order - but hey!). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks all! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Khazar2. You have new messages at Ranking Update's talk page.
Message added 15:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

He's not really retired, just taking a break from here to help the Malay Wiki, where I found him doing some work to improve it. Arctic Kangaroo 15:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on that. I closed the review after a week when I didn't get a response, but you could always renominate. Some initial comments are on the review page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to show me the link to the review page? Thanks in advance. :) Arctic Kangaroo 07:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure. You can see it transcluded on the article talk page for now. The dedicated subpage is here. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Please see my response at Talk:Spencer_W._Kimball/GA1#GA_Review, thanks.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied there. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Alben W. Barkley

First, sorry to learn of your hospital stay, but I hope your recent editing activity is an indication of a recovery that's going well. Just wanted to let you know that Alben W. Barkley, an article you passed for GA, is now at FAC, if you're feeling up to it. Speedy recovery. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks--yep, all's well on this end. Glad to see you taking Barkley to FAC! I generally avoid FAC due to its high drama quotient, but may make an exception in this case. Good luck either way, and thanks for letting me know. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm getting a little fed up with FAC for the opposite reason. My last FAC lingered for over a month and only got 1 review. So basically, I wasted that time. That's why I'm actively contacting folks that might want to review Barkley. I worked too hard on that one for it to remain GA forever. Glad you're back up and going. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Dang, that is frustrating. I'll have to try to go by and leave a comment soon. Good luck with it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Khazar2/Archive_7&oldid=1141831657"