User talk:Khazar2

Bahrain Thirteen

Hey Khazar,

I know you're on a wikibreak, but I though I'd share this with you (and whoever is watching :p). On 4 September the verdict of Bahrain Thirteen should be heard. Those are heavyweight Bahrain opposition and rights activists and include figures such as Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, Abduljalil al-Singace, Ibrahim Sharif, Abdulwahab Hussain and Hassan Mushaima. I was thinking we should create an article about them before that, since given their weight and how long the fool government of Bahrain is going to sentence them, this might as well be posted in ITN. They are also referred to as 21 or 14, but currently they're 13 and that is how an Amnesty article referred to them "Bahrain 13". Anyway, I've gathered sources here as usual and I'll see what I can do about it for now. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds great. I'm planning to start writing again in a few days, so I can either start it at that point or continue it. Thanks as always for your researching. Khazar2 (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm almost done with this article, could still use some copy-editing. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder--I let this one totally slip my mind. Will be by later today. Khazar2 (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, gave it a look and it looks solid. The only area where I could see someone potentially objecting is the traditional problem with these Bahrain court cases: the government doesn't want to talk about it, and everyone else in the world condemns it, so it results in an article that may seem like a NPOV violation even though it isn't. But I'm not sure what more can be done about that; leaving out the extensive coverage by international media and human rights groups seems like a bad option. Thanks as always for putting these together... Khazar2 (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! That is indeed problematic, but I'm sure anyone who would look carefully into this and compare article to reliable sources used won't object. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure--always feel free to ping me when you want a second pair of eyes. Khazar2 (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Half way

I applaud your extensive cleaning up of articles, but I'm puzzled by your purging of "half way" and "half-way". Perhaps Americans prefer to see these as a single word, but all three forms are common in British English. The OED puts the hyphenated form first. Dbfirs 07:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not the one who first added this to the AWB typo fix set, but my impression from double-checking my own (American) dictionaries and some British newspapers online was that "halfway" was vastly the preferred spelling (4-5 times more frequent on the Guardian and BBC, enough to suggest that a style guide preferred it). Still, if there's variation, it may be better to take it back out of the typo fix set--or I may have been applying it improperly. I'll lay off for now, but to see any long-term results, I'd suggest raising your issue at WP:AWB/T or with User Chris the Speller, who appears to have introduced the rule two weeks ago ([1]). Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Khazar2 (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll mention this to Chris. I'll also do a bit of research on cross-pondian differences in usage. My own style tends to be slightly dated, so perhaps fashion is changing here as it obviously has in the USA. Dbfirs 06:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Jesús Blancornelas

I suggest you put in a section of published works, which at least lists his books. Cheers! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but I haven't found a list of his books yet. If you have one from a good source, it'd be a welcome addition. Thanks-- Khazar2 (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we're getting there. Please review what we have done. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ruth Simon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sudanese Civil War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

You really moved this project along. Enjoy! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been working my way down the CPJ International Press Freedom Award winners list expanding the articles mostly solo, so it was a pleasure to suddenly get so much help. Khazar2 (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Kenya

Hey there,

We're looking for some votes at this ITN post. It hasn't gotten more than 2 votes. Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of nominations have received some inactivity these past few days.

Your vote would be much appreciated. (I hope this is allowed, since I'm not asking you to vote in any specific direction...)

Thanks. --Activism1234 02:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, definitely allowed, but to be honest, I'm making a clean(ish) break with ITN for a while. I still feel like it's valuable part of the main page, but I also feel like it's been distracting me from raw content creation. I suppose I'm a bit disillusioned about it, too. For every editor (like yourself) who generates quality content through the project, there's 3-4 who hang around just to battle; some of our regulars have edit histories that are literally nothing but ITN/C votes. I'm also a little discouraged that the same editors who war endlessly over US/anti-US bias often disappear as soon as a non-US/UK submission is made (as I suspect without looking is the case for your Kenya nom). I shouldn't pooh-pooh it entirely, since putting a useful variety of current links on the front page is a great way to pull people into the project. But I have started to feel like my own time is better invested in putting my head down and just writing, writing, writing than in debating what links would be best for that area. I might nom some occasional work in the future, but I think I'm worn out on the assessing/voting part.

I don't mean to discourage you, either, since you've been doing some amazing work there. I've enjoyed watching your user talk to see you getting involved in more and more areas, and quite effectively, to judge from the comments people are leaving. Hope you continue to find rewarding areas to work, and feel free to ping me any time you're interested in a collaborator. Khazar2 (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OK I understand that. And yes, I'm really disappointed that my nomination on Mitt Romney got tons and tons of votes (I'm not upset it didn't pass, as I realized that was very likely and understood why), but this nomination on Kenya - which actually has more of a chance of getting to ITN - only received 4 votes so far. I'll see what happens though. And about my talk page, I began WP by editing very controversial topics, since then I've been editing in different areas (as well) and it alleviates a lot of stress. --Activism1234 04:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

But in regards to edit warring at ITN, I can see where you're coming from, but it's nothing compared to edit warring on articles. There aren't reverts and 3RR violations, and I haven't really seen any back-and-forth arguments between two editors that lasted for more than 4 replies. Yes, I do realize some people complain whenever a U.S.-event nomination is posted, no matter the size of it, and then disappear on other nominations... But I think ITN is a great project and has some really great editors there, and you were among them, so hopefully we'll see you back soon (although edit at your own pace, there isn't any rush, wikibreaks are good). --Activism1234 04:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Although to be fair, my nomination on China here has gotten enough support votes that I feel it can be posted, although I'm not sure whteher an admin is noticing it since it was from a few days ago :( --Activism1234 04:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Blaaargh spoke too soon! --Activism1234 04:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Carmen Balcells article

I see you took the time to go through the Carmen Balcells article and changed the citation style from <ref>Ayén 2006</ref> to <ref name="Ayén 2006">Ayén 2006</ref>. I see the effect this has on the article, being more compressed in the reference section. But uglier, in my opinion. In WP:CITEVAR it clearly says not to change an established style. Could you tell me why you changed this? Thanks, - GroveGuy (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I was primarily there to fix the spelling error "part time work", and simply let AWB also do the standard reference compression. I've never thought of the reference compression as a CITEVAR issue, and it's not listed as one of the things to be avoided in that section. To me it seems intuitively helpful to readers and editors to be able to immediately assess the degree to which an article draws on a certain source, but I'm happy to agree to disagree. If you consider it a style preference, you should feel entirely free to revert (just be sure to fix the typo). If you feel this issue is something that needs to be more generally addressed, you might raise it at WT:AWB or to have it be more explicitly addressed at WP:CITEVAR; my understanding is that the reference compression is standard wiki-procedure, so you're better off raising the issue at the source that with me individually. In either case, though, thanks for your work on that article and for bringing this to my attention. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Time to find sources?

Regarding recent removal of material from the Lowes article. I understand the WP:V policy, particularly WP:BURDEN, but you look like a veteran editor with some time available to help with WP. I think the readers of the encyclopedia would be better served if you spent time finding source rather than simply removing material that, on its face, appears to be valid. Have you considered spending some time finding sources, as suggested in WP:PRESERVE: "doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself" before deleting it? --Noleander (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Regarding recent removal of material from the Lowes article. I understand the WP:V policy, particularly WP:BURDEN, but you look like a veteran editor with some time available to help with WP. I think the readers of the encyclopedia would be better served if you spent time finding source rather than simply removing material that, on its face, appears to be valid. Have you considered spending some time finding sources, as suggested in WP:PRESERVE: "fix material if you can, before deleting it"? --Noleander (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and I often do this for articles I'm particularly interested in or knowledgeable about--I've been working through Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience all year for exactly this purpose. But it's not as if I have an infinite amount of time, unfortunately, and my experience is that Googling to verify/deny another editor's unsourced claims is a very time-consuming endeavor. In this case, the article has been marked as in need of clean-up for more than a year and a half now--plenty of time for editors such as yourself who find the article of interest to improve it. Unfortunately, no one has chosen to do so. IMHO Wikipedia articles are better off with no claim than with an unsourced, unverifiable claim, particularly in an article flagged as having {{WP:ADVERT|advertising]] concerns.

All that said, if you want to stick the info back in the grounds that it seems plausible, I certainly won't revert again; you appear to know more about Lowe's than I do. But in an article flagged for NPOV issues, I think our default response should be to remove unsourced info after a reasonable warning period. This moves the burden where it should be--on an author who wants to include the information.

In either case, thanks for your note and your work on the article. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing content

I happened by your work at NewTek. When I reverted your edit I commented "Find sources, don't delete valuable content. Once you hide it on your one person's opinion, it is lost to everybody on the planet. Take some rsponsiblity and use Google." I don't want those words lost. I see you are a mega-editor with a history as an academic. Fine aspirations. But wholesale deletion of content does not help the world know. I'm pretty active on wikipedia myself. I know the junk people post on here. But you have to have some discretion about what is junk and what is accurate content, whether sourced or not. First of all, stick with what you know. If you don't know it, you are an academic, what do you do? You seek the answers to learn it yourself. Google or the myriad of other search engines are great sources of information. If it is junk, or advertising, of course get rid of it. But by deleting accurate information, you remove it from public view, nobody can build upon it. Nobody will be motivated to build upon it. I see you did the same damage to Macromedia HomeSite. I don't know a thing about the subject, but what you removed doesn't look the least bit dangerous, contentious or false. I will suggest when I do look up the sources, I'll find most of it is true. Something I suggest you should have done before you deleted the content. And you should do it in the future, before you delete any other massive chunks of content that other editors, perhaps far less educated in the ways of the wiki, but much more knowledgeable about the SUBJECT, have contributed. Before you continue on your edit a minute rampage, slow down. Before you do anything else, go back and repair the damage you have done to other articles. And consider the value of the edits you are seemingly making haphazzardly. A lot of people learn a lot of stuff from what we have here. You, as one person, are not always right, but alone you can certainly do the project wrong. Trackinfo (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; unfortunately, a shouty, repetitive rant is about as persuasive on Wikipedia as in day-to-day life. I'll just comment again as I did above: Wikipedia is no place for unsourced information, and doubly so in articles that have long been tagged for having sourcing and POV problems. The reason sections like Template:Advert and Template:Unsourced have such an enormous backlog is, unfortunately, editors like yourself, who believe that once an IP writes a sentence into Wikipedia that doesn't "look false", it should remain until another editor can conclusively prove its falsehood through Google. WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN are two rules that are in tension, I agree. But once an article has been tagged as problematic for POV, and editors have chosen not to improve it for several years, it's time for clean-up. Among the material you just added to Macromedia HomeSite is, to pick a random example, the two sentences, "The focus was on building the community, not revenue. Users responded to that respect and love for the tool by supporting each other and by creating and sharing a wide variety of HomeSite extensions." You've also reincluded an entire section that appears tonally to be cut-and-pasted from the marketing for this product, without identifying it in-text as such: "The integrated browser view and the external browser list let you view your edited document quickly in your choice of browsers", etc.

To me, such lines clearly suggest that the editor who created this article came at it (no doubt well-meaningly) from an obvious POV. To state that the only option to remove an advertisement is to spend several hours Googling and writing a replacement article is an unreasonable WP:BURDEN to put an editor; sometimes, unverified information just needs to be removed until an editor cares enough about the subject to write an actual article.

Obviously, I'll be thrilled if you spend a chunk of your evening rewriting that one from a neutral perspective verified from secondary, reliable sources; it's a minor topic, but every new article to Wikipedia is of course a help. But there's nothing "haphazard" or damaging about removing thinly-veiled advertisements from Wikipedia. Khazar2 (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note - I found a reference for one part of a sentence and I put that in. Other sentences, however, I could not find reliable references for. It seems a lot of it is taken from the company's website. In that case, in order to keep the info, I'd suggest attributing it, such as "NewTek describes Digiview as..." since it will be tough to find reliable references for these sentences. It's not the best remedy, and would be unnacceptable in contentious topics, but I think it will suffice unless reliable refs can be found. Hope that helps. --Activism1234 04:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It helps to a degree, but I'm uncomfortable relying entirely on a company's press materials for an article about them; doesn't quite meet WP:RS. It also doesn't clear up the unsourced, promotional tone of sentences like "DigiPaint product offered at release the unique capability of editing and painting on images in the Amiga's unique hold-and-modify high colour mode in real time." (Or, for that matter, "The fame of Video Toaster extended beyond the product; the company's founder Tim Jenison and its Vice President Paul Montgomery also were presented as new types of entrepreneurs running a new and different kind of company" (Source: some random guy's blog)) I won't edit-war over this, of course, since Trackinfo feels strongly that they can reliably source all the information they've just inserted. And honestly, the article on a Panamanian vice president that I'm trying to work on seems more important than battling a tiny tech company's self-promotion. Khazar2 (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah the tone of the article is a different story to me. I'd like to help out, but same issue as you do - too busy working on other articles more important to me, such as creating an article for each Egyptian cabinet member (see the template I created, Template:Cabinet Qandil) :( --Activism1234 04:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in, though! Talk-page stalkers always welcome. =) Khazar2 (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and very nice on the template--good luck filling it in! Khazar2 (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Preachy, shouty. OK I'll cop to that. And here's more of it. Above I see some learned discussion and true consideration of the content of the article. That's good. We are editors. So edit. What I am complaining about is in the case of these two articles, your history shows you deleted thousands of characters of content in less than a minute's consideration (from other edits on other articles). That shows an amazing ability just to read that much content, but not enough time to consider, research and prove this is invalid content. You know you didn't think that hard about those edits until I called your attention to them. You just slammed them into more of your rush to edit more and more, as fast as pages will load for you. You deleted the entire history of both of these companies--a history that sources show was pretty accurate. So back to my point. Slow down and make each edit you do accurate. If you don't know the fact, research, so what you post, or what you delete is proper, not just by the rules of the oligarchy that governs the back side of wikipedia, but by what is good for the public who reads this site. An IP editor is not a low life, they are just inexperienced. They don't know how to "source" their content, they may have just discovered the edit button. But you and I as experienced editors need to verify what they have reported is accurate and help their contributions to be just as valid as anything you might write in a subject you know about. One of the great values of wikipedia is the stuff you can learn here. What starts as an IP edit, that might even look libelous, and turn out to be not only true but easy to find, if only you use the names provided by the IP. Edit. Rewrite. Nit-pick the words to make it right. You have the ability. Trackinfo (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I have the ability. It's just that I don't always have the 2-4 hours to resource an unsourced tech-company advert. I understand that you mean well, and I respect your work in article rescue. But "all information is true until proven false" you propose just isn't how Wikipedia works, and some of your accusations above are just silly--have you found an instance where I've posted new information without research, as you imply? Or are you just confusing the issue for rhetorical effect? I'll be glad to go back and revise something if that's the case, but I suspect that it's not.

Anyway, when you demand that I "prove this is invalid content" before deleting material already flagged as problematic by another editor, it's the exact opposite of WP:BURDEN. We seem to be agreed that my edits followed Wikipedia policy. You may consider them a back-side "oligarchy", but that's more or less the end of the discussion for me.

Lastly, I note that you ran out of steam after fifteen minutes and only adding citations for a few sentences of Macromedia HomeSite; dozens of claims still appear unsourced. (Turned out to be a lot of work, no?) POV claims crying out for a secondary source citation still remain throughout the article, such as "In the days that HomeSite was under Nick Bradbury, and then part of Allaire, it had an enthusiastic following from its user community. While many software companies at the time had WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) website creation tools where the user never saw the code, Nick Bradbury created a product that was code centric and popular with those that preferred to work directly in the code, a concept that was dubbed "What You See Is What You Need."" More problematic is that one of the sources you cited is either an obvious mirror Wikipedia's content, or the previous editor (and now you) have cut-and-pasted their content as an out-and-out WP:COPYVIO (it has nearly our entire article on the site). In the prior case, to claim them as a reliable source seems to me circular logic; in the latter case, it's a serious breach of policy. In either case, please resolve the issue, and on a more general note, please cease inserting POV, unsourced material like the above into Wikipedia in the future. Khazar2 (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I did a lousy job on one of the sources I added . . . to an article on a subject I know nothing about. That's big news. I should butt out and let someone who knows about the subject do the writing. You have to admit you have no knowledge about the subject either. You have no business making massive deletions to such a subject. The previous editor who put that content in had much greater knowledge about the subject than either of us and from multiple sources, what is there checks out, maybe not on a point by point basis, but certainly enough to assume the rest of the content is correct. Yes, I only took a few minutes to throw some sources in there. You could have done the same, enough to satisfy your critical self that what is there is valid, as opposed to commercial canned hogwash. You can look at each edit and make a coarse or a fine judgement. You can't apply the same logic to both. You made a short sighted coarse edit and now that I have questioned it, are applying fine edit points to that judgement. I have not taken the time to go back through your history to see how many other valid articles you have taken your machete to. I've got other things to do too. All I am saying is, on whatever level you make an edit, make an informed edit. If you are going to hack out a large chunk, know that you have done so because it is false information, not just that other editors before you have not done the legwork of showing where they got their information. They might have done a lousy job of putting it in, you do not need to do an equally lousy job of taking it out. Somebody has got to try to make it right. If something has been around on the page for four years, nobody has seen anything wrong with it. You are the one with experience, so its your responsibility to wikify the sources. Trackinfo (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You have remarkably strong opinions about the responsibility of other editors; they would be more convincing if you took responsibility for your own edits. You've just added a large amount of unsourced, POV text to Wikipedia, reverting another editor to do it; you also added a Wikipedia mirror site as a "source", apparently without even reading it, which makes your other sourcing on the page suspect at best. Even after the error was pointed out, you've so far declined to remove it. In the future, you might consider cleaning up your own work before preaching to fellow editors about theirs.

But back to the general point, I'm sorry you dislike "oligarchy" policies on verification, but this discussion appears to have run its reasonable course. I'm just going to have to disagree with your theory that there's a burden of proof on the removing editor, rather than the adding editor, and further notes from you on this subject are going to go unanswered. Though we've disagreed today, however, I wish you all the best in your future editing, and thank you for your work generally -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your service!! Dominicskywalker (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Very kind of you -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add my thanks for your continued work on the article Tuareg rebellion (2012). --RJFF (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. I lived in Mali for a time, so this is a subject close to my heart. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It's great that you're covering the subject so closely. I've been very worried about the situation over there, and I think having substantial content about it on Wikipedia does in fact help make a difference to many people (who knows, it may even save lives someday). Hopefully it's not going to become the next Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. Kurtis (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I read an article recently saying that "We'd hate to see Country X become the next Somalia or Mali." Made me quite sad to see those two put together. Khazar2 (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please update!

You know this much better than I do - please update the article, per this ITN nomination. I'll mark you as "updater."

Thanks. --Activism1234 01:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Will probably have to wait till tomorrow, but I'll be glad to. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I added in three sentences, but honestly I'm not sure how much more is justified in the article at this point. The problem is that we've got one master article at 2012 Northern Mali conflict for an enormous situation, so the traditional ITN 5-sentence/3-ref update would probably be undue weight here. Douentza isn't a very big Malian city, and it appears the militia that the Islamists disarmed was working in concert with them already, so there wasn't a lot of fighting/change. That's just my take, though; you might check in on the talk page there to see if other editors see it as a bigger step than I do. Thanks for pointing this development out to me, though, so I could update this one! Khazar2 (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification--glad to see it up. Khazar2 (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Tuareg Rebellion deletions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mali conflict

I agree with all of what is said, but would like to say that I am going to close the Tuareg rebellion (2012) part of the conflict because it ended back in April. Since than it has been hijacked by the Islamists and this is a totally new conflict but part of the overall 2012 Northern Mali desert conflict or 2012 Northern Mali conflict or whatever, for which you created an article (great work by the way). But don't change the name of the article, Tuareg rebellion (2012), because, per the previous discussion, this conflict from January-April, was primarily Tuareg-led, the Islamists came in after the fact. Although most of the Ansar Dine guys are also, per sources, Tuaregs, just of the radical Islamic faith. In any case, the new 2012 northern Mali conflict should be the main article from here on out, being the main overview article. As far as the Tuareg one goes, it has ended. The Tuareg rebellion portion has ended back in early April. After that there was almost no fighting for three months until conflict erupted between the nationalist Tuaregs and the Islamist ones. That created a totally new conflict for which a new page should be created or at least enough information be added to the main article on the 2012 northern Mali conflict. I hope we agree? EkoGraf (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, sounds like we're in agreement. Khazar2 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Great. :) EkoGraf (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yusak Pakage

Expanded about 400 or 500 characters, DYKed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography mistake and AWB

For Talk:Buchtar Tabuni, you had blp and living mixed up. I corrected the mistake here.

But, more importantly, you are using an outdated version of AWB that is over a year old. You can pick up the latest version here. Bgwhite (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. As somebody who often writes or WPtemplates 2-3 biography articles a day, I'd love to get my hands on whoever created non-interchangeable parameters for those templates.

As for AWB, that's odd. My AWB, which I believe was up-to-date, shut down two days ago and gave me a link to download a "new version"; that's the version I'm using now. I'll just redownload from your link, I suppose. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange... It is supposed to shut down and tell you to download the new version, but in your contributions, your edit summaries says "using AWB )" where the edit summary should say "using AWB (8323)". In AWB, if you goto Help-> About, what version and what SVN number does it say you are using. It should read Version 5.3.1.2 and SVN 8323. Bgwhite (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I downloaded the correct version a few minutes ago--looks like it's working now. Not sure what went wrong earlier in the week, but it was doubtless my fault. Again, thanks for letting me know. Khazar2 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

According to your user page, you are married. Don't you know it is always your fault, atleast that is what my wife tells me. Congratulations on the new Wikipedian. Bgwhite (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! And yes, that's Mrs. Khazar's policy as well. Khazar2 (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Confused... Do I download both AWB files from that link? Should I save it where I had my outdated AWB? Should I then delete all the folders associated with the outdated AWB? Which zip folder would I then click to launch AWB? --Activism1234 19:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the top link is the correct one, while the second is primarily for historical reference. Yours should be fine in any case; mine just glitched somehow and I replaced it incorrectly. Khazar2 (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope i dont think it is. My AWB edits don't have the (version) next to it. --Activism1234 20:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I definitely don't. See here - the edit summary doesn't include the AWB version, unlike Bgwhite. I downloaded both of them. But should I delete my previous AWB folder? --Activism1234 20:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure, honestly. You might do so just to avoid confusion. Khazar2 (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm always confused. Only download the first link, "AutoWikiBrowser5312_rev8323.zip". I unzip it where my outdated AWB is located. I don't delete anything. When the windows dialog pops up asking you if you want to merge and/or copy-replace, I say yes to everything Bgwhite (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I screwed up the entire thing... The window looks new, but when I click to save it, it starts a countdown to refresh the page in 15 or 20 seconds, and then just refreshes the page without making my changes... I guess I'll have to delete AWB and redownload it... Should I download what I had before AND the first file in the link you sent, or ONLY the first file in the link you sent? --Activism1234 20:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Just download the program from the link I gave you. Bgwhite (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

AWB developers have officially released version 5.4. You can get it at SourceForge, here. You won't need to download a SVN version for awhile, unless you want to. Bgwhite (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will check it out-- Khazar2 (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Bradberry edits

HI Khazar2. I recently added some things to the Stephen Bradberry page, however you went in and deleted my edits, including a recent image of him I was granted permission to post via him and the photographer directly. While I appreciate your time creating and administering this page, I am a little concerned at why my edits would be deleted. I linked the info I posted and am a friend and associate of Stephen Bradberry who has worked with him in various capacities over the last 6 years. If there is something else I can do to ensure my edits are not changed or if there is a specific concern with the edits please let me know. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akarimorph (talk • contribs) 23:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Akarimorph, welcome, and thanks for your interest in Wikipedia; I'm sorry some of your early edits were removed. I left a note on that article's talk page detailing some of the reasons I thought the changes were necessary, but the short version is the problems are two-fold: first, Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources for its information, and second, that Wikipedia tends to have certain formats for articles that stay consistent from article to article.

As a colleague of Bradberry's, I'd also suggest you review our guidelines on conflict of interest editing. The best thing, as the guidelines suggest, would be to leave notes on the article's talk page concerning any inaccuracies you see, sources that the article could be using but isn't, etc.; uninvolved editors can then decide what information to correct and add. If you feel that I'm changing anything unfairly and we can't work it out between the two of us, you can also request a third opinion.

Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia, and I hope you'll stick around to work on not just Bradberry's article, but also US community activists you don't have a personal relation to. As you can see with how long it took us to get an article about him up, we're always in need of more volunteers interested in this area! All the best, Khazar2 (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For little Ms Khazar. Her daddy did a really good job with CPJ International Press Freedom Awards.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! She'll appreciate it--her dad's been lobbying, but Mrs. Khazar says no cats till we get a bigger house. =) Khazar2 (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

A mouse for you!

	A mouse for you!
	I noticed that Crisco gave you a cat... But every kitty needs some food. So here's a little mousy for your kitty. Activism1234 00:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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

NP article

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

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

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

Baton Haxhiu

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

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

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

undoing my edit

my dear friend, im an aurthrized person to work on Ebrahim Sharif page on Wikipedia [2] , and you undo important update on his page, can you pleas let us work on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaadBH (talk • contribs) 22:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Amending "minority topics" -- de-archived

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

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

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

Orphaned non-free image File:Falling Man, Ernest Trova, 1969.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Falling Man, Ernest Trova, 1969.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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

List of PEN literary awards

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

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

Lydia Cacho

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

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

Nadarkhani

I understand removing those 2 other categories, but I don't understand how the category "prisoner of conscience" wouldn't apply. Can you explain? Thanks. --Activism1234 22:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Got it, didn't realize. Thanks! --Activism1234 01:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

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

DYK for Yusak Pakage

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

Wikipedia Takes St. Louis

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

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

Fitz's

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