Jump to content

User talk:Khazar2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Akarimorph (talk | contribs) at 23:04, 3 September 2012 (→Stephen Bradberry edits: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Your assistance requested

Nice to meet you Khazar2, my name is Kurtis and I am an editor interested in topics relating to human rights. In case you're unfamiliar with me, I formerly edited under the username "Master&Expert" until being renamed several hours ago.

Anyways, several days ago I was speaking with Crisco 1492 (a link for your convenience), and he told me you're the go-to guy for human rights articles. I recently created and expanded the article Forced evictions in Baku from scratch, and have nominated it to be on DYK (nomination here). Both Poeticbent and Secretlondon commented that the article might be construed as being biased towards one side of the dispute. After reviewing the page, I came to agree with their sentiments and began revising the text so as not to give undue weight to the critics of the Aliyev regime. But right now, I'm lost as to what I should do next, and how I can further improve this article to the point where it could be considered a strong piece of content (ideally attaining featured status, unless that's a bit lofty for this point in time). I also requested a peer review for the article, but it has yet to receive a response.

Would you be willing to offer me some advice in how I can improve this article? Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! =) Kurtis (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be my pleasure to help. The Mrs. and I have plans with friends for most of the day, but I can try a bit before my daughter wakes, some more before I go to sleep. I've actually written a bit on the Baku evictions already through some of the HR defenders that have run afoul of that situation. I'll take a look now, but don't be surprised if I disappear mid-edit for the day. I'll be back. =) Khazar2 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's all right. I noticed you've made some formatting corrections already. Thank you so much for your help. =) Kurtis (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, gotta tap out for the day. Thanks so much for starting this article. I think it's fundamentally strong, and your research looks great. It's just going to be a question of tweaking for NPOV, as you say. Cheers! Khazar2 (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually quite a bit tougher to maintain NPOV on something I'm passionate about than I had thought it would be. Nevertheless, it can be done. Pleased to have gotten help from you, and I really appreciate all the work you've put into making the article better. =) Kurtis (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Burma's always the one that gets me. Khazar2 (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that'll do it. Interestingly (to me at least), my bachelour's degree is in literature and yet I have no problem writing NPOV about literary works. Mind you, how I feel is a different matter (i.e. Siti Nurbaya and Belenggu were both dreadfully dull but have GAs, and yet we don't have an article on Keluarga Gerilya yet, which I thoroughly enjoyed. I think I focus more on the historically important works). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the same way for me, actually, on the rare occasions that I've ventured into literature editing. Maybe it's being used to hearing multiple aspects/angles on a work discussed in the classroom? Whereas when it's something like the imprisonment of Min Ko Naing, it's hard for me to accept emotionally that there even could be multiple POVs (though, of course, intellectually I know there are). Khazar2 (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I'm kind of strange for having done this, but I actually made a list of the 100 worst dictators of contemporary times (i.e. Post-WWI). Suharto ranked somewhere in the top 15 (but not the top 10). He was a nasty one. Kurtis (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Know a lot more on Mugabe than forced evictions in Baku. It's amazing that the amount of info on that article in regards to criticism about one of the worst human rights abusers is hardly anything, compared to the rest of the article. Granted, there is a lot of criticism in the "criticism" and "sanctions" section. But there's so much more info that is also important that could be added. --Activism1234 16:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're worried about NPOV, I don't mind contributing to it. I have no bias against Azerbaijan or Baku, and don't know much about the subject (other than human rights in general which I care about), so it'd be good for me to to learn more about it. --Activism1234 15:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More eyes always welcome--that's what Wikipedia's all about, after all. Cheers! Khazar2 (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a number of useful references to the talk page, and expanded the section on Eurovision a bit. Got to go for now, hope to help out later! --Activism1234 15:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, under US law we're allowed to use bits and pieces of text (in quotes) under a fair use doctrine. The writer maintains his/her copyright, and we don't get our pants sued off. However, fair use is based in part on the amount used; if a quote includes 50% of a news article, then there is very little chance that a court would accept a claim of fair use. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean, but the article was much much longer than the 2 sentences I used from it, which I also reworded and trimmed down to be different, but based on, the source. --Activism1234 00:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now or earlier? Earlier there were about 1000 words of material from copyrighted sources (admittedly not part of the article, but still) in an article that wasn't even 1000 words long. Quotes may be useful for verifiability, but sometimes copyright trumps that. Even now (on my screen) the length of the page is more than half quotes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I see. I suggest mentioning that to Kurtis, who created the article (I only added a bit of info about Eurovision, the 2 sentences I was referring to), although I'd be happy to help out with that when I get a chance. --Activism1234 01:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poeticbent actually mentioned that on the DYK nomination page, and then I read up on Wikipedia's policy regarding the use of quotes. I'd intended to fix that up sometime in the near future, but it seems as though you guys beat me to the chase. Thanks for that. =) Kurtis (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morsi vs Tantawi - for article?

I've been told that Arabic media is claiming that Morsi and Tantawi were fighting (not physically) before Morsi fired Tantawi (ITN). Apparently, Tantawi said he had evidence that the 5 August attack was perpetrated by terrorists from Gaza. Tantawi insisted that for this reason, the Egyptian-Gaza border (Rafah crossing) should be closed once and for all, as a threat to Egyptian national security. However, Morsi said that Palestinians would never accept closing the border (Morsi had made promises in the past to Hamas to open the crossing more and lift the Egyptian blockade on Gaza). However, Tantawi said that this decision is to be made by the military (SCAF), and Morsi said that he (Morsi) is rather the supreme commander of the military. Hours after this, the reports said, Tantawi and some other officials were quickly replaced, as a result of this.

Sources: [1], [2].

Is this reliable enough to be included (not as a fact, but attributed as "According to some Arabic media...) in the article on the attack, under Egyptian response?

Thanks.

--Activism1234 18:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not familiar enough with those two Arabic outlets to say. If this becomes a significant view, some report of it will probably emerge in the English-language media, too. But if you want to include it now, sourced explicitly to those, that'd be fine with me, too. Or maybe bring it up on the Morsi or Tantawi talk pages and get a wider range of opinions? Khazar2 (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with the latter option, and check for the first option in the next few hours/days. Thanks. --Activism1234 23:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-immolations

Why does the self-immolation article contain so few notable political self-immolations, and only from 2011-present? I'm sure that there are plenty of political self-immolations from places like Vietnam in the 1900's, as opposed to just 2011-present. Thought it'd be best to bring into your attention as you'd likely know many of these. --Activism1234 05:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of those article that turns into an "example farm" because instead of anyone coming there to talk about self-immolation as a long term concept, they usually just add a line or two about whatever they're writing about--I just did the same. I'm not sure my re-org really even improved it that much, but at least it broke those one or two line mentions out from a more thoughful and detailed section. My guess is that I'll end up debating half those entries in a week (the unsourced ones). If we can find other good examples from previous history, I'm all for that, too. Khazar2 (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Have a few other pages I'm working on right now, but if I get up to this one, I'll give it a whirl. Another interesting article you may be interested in is Human rights in Lebanon, which has a tag that it needs to be updated (I added some info last week on treatment of homosexuals/protests against "anal examinations"). --Activism1234 13:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been avoiding the "Human rights in..." articles, to be honest, because I haven't figured out what we're shooting for in them. Asking around at a few project boards, no one had a good example of what the final project should look like. It's complicated because it's such a huge topic--Human rights in France, for example, could be argued to cover more than a thousand years of history. But even shortening it to a specific timeframe (post-WWII on) still raises complicated questions in what human rights we list (e.g., is a law banning abortion a violation of human rights, or is a law permitting it a violation of human rights? Or is it POV to talk about abortion in the article at all?) and what sources we use (do we consider Amnesty and HRW the final word? Do we rely on things like US State Dept reports or Iranian state-owned media critiquing each other? etc.). At some point, WP Human Rights or another forum needs to have a long talk about how those articles should look so that they're not all the recentist "example farms" they tend to be now. I've grudgingly been admitting to myself that I'm a logical person to start that conversation, but haven't gotten around to it yet.
All that said, I'm glad you added the anal examination bit. I read about that somewhere previously and was horrified. If it turns out not to fit in the master human rights article, you can always shift it over to the more specialized LGBT rights in Lebanon. Khazar2 (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, and such a discussion would be necessary indeed. My personal opinion is that the article shouldn't be from ancient history --> present, but rather either history in the past or current human rights in the present (and 2 seperate articles can exist). If a country committed outrageous human rights abuses throughout its history, and then in the 21st century modernized and became the #1 protector of human rights, I can see creating only one article as a bashing place for that country, by filling it up with mainly its history and leaving very little info on the fact it's #1 protector of human rights. I'd raise that though if such a discussion is opened. For now, I think I'll edit these articles based on whether it makes it into reliable media outlets, not just Amnesty and HRW, and whether it isn't controversial if it's human rights violation or not. But I understand your decision, and don't mind it. Thanks. --Activism1234 17:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really dark literature

  • How do you feel about dark literature and films? Djenar Maesa Ayu's stuff is way out there, some of it darker than Stephen King's It. Her film is a bit tamer and it's still something Hollywood would choke on.
To keep this Wikipedia related, could I bug you for a quick copyedit? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like 'em. And yes, glad to. Khazar2 (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, could you look at the movie article? Decided to bring it up to GA and (later) push for FA. For the short stories, try looking for "Painting a Window" and "The Leech", both translated by Michael Nieto Garcia. That's some dark stuff right there, especially "Painting a Window". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, a bit out of my price range. But, yeah, if you ever get a chance, I'd be interested to see. Both articles look good to me--great stuff as always, thanks for putting em up. Khazar2 (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Khazar and I both have a bit of a background in literature so I share some translations of Indonesian works with him. If you want a couple just ping me by email. (A lot of my articles are related to literature and writers, although recently almost everything has been film related) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian diplomat accepts to mediate

Noticed you posted a nomination for this on ITN a while ago, and people supported it once it happened for real. It happened.

Source: 1

Not sure how stickies work though...

--Activism1234 00:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually clear on now that would work either (and for the record, I think the nom was somebody else--I just supported). You might ask in that thread or on WT:ITN. Khazar2 (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Input

You were involved in the discussion here. As an editor is willing to review this article for good article, but that is being blocked becasue of this discussion (the current stand is 3-1). Your input on this and how to resolve would be great so we can get a move on it getting reviewed for good article.

Thanks. --Activism1234 16:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More replies given. I've posed an option that I'd like at least 1 other involved editor to agree or oppose, so if you have time, perhaps you can check it out. Thanks. --Activism1234 19:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the greeting. I thought we'd had some contact over Jean-Claude Kavumbagu but looking back at the article history, looks like I didn't make any contribution there, so it must have been somewhere else. Anyhow, I appreciated all your HR-related contributions, wherever!Opbeith (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Khazar2 (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for CPJ International Press Freedom Awards

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need help?

It's really late here and for some reason I'm still up. Hence, I'm bored and don't have much to do. Do you need any help on certain articles, either those you think I may be of interest or even ones I can look up and learn more about?

Thanks. --Activism1234 05:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Always! This may be more involved than you're looking to get into, but it'd be fun if we could get Senkaku Islands dispute ITN-ready. That's a doozy, though--not sure it'll be possible given the tight editing restrictions (see the talk page). On a simpler level, I had to remove most of Veran Matić's bio for copyright violation (cut-and-paste) and haven't gotten around to replacing most of it yet. Thanks for asking. =)
I'm off myself--enjoy the night! Khazar2 (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awwww you want me to edit a highly controversial South China Seas dispute topic? F***. I'm in! --Activism1234 05:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mainly focusing on formatting right now and grammar. I'll try to pitch in with content soon. --Activism1234 05:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've expanded, and will continue to do so for a bit before heading off. Thanks! Good night. --Activism1234 05:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I see you went for the big stuffed bear! I appreciate the assist. I'm skeptical that this one can make it to the main page, due to the 1RR and other discretionary sanctions on it... I think they'll slow us down too much. But if nothing else we can improve the article while it's getting a lot of clickthroughs. Khazar2 (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe no reason to be pessemistic! If you put your mind to it, anything can happen. In this case, it got posted! --Activism1234 15:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw! Let the carnage begin. =) But seriously, thanks for the additional cleanup. It'll be great to get this complicated issue the front page attention, and hopefully some further work. Khazar2 (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also have a look at my nomination for ITN here and either support, oppose, or comment on it? Thanks! --Activism1234 22:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:BenTels#Tag bombing at Leyla Yunus

Hello, Khazar2. You have new messages at BenTels's talk page.
Message added 09:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Kampala Accord

Sinc eyou seem interested in such issues, the above needs an article. See Somali presidential election, 2012 or the TFG page.Lihaas (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll swing by and take a look once I clean my plate off a little bit! I've stretched myself pretty thin the last few days. Thanks for the ping, though, Khazar2 (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Scott - DOB

Hey Khazar.
I noticed that you are taking a leading role in administering and cleaning up the Tony Scott page since his death.
In lieu of this, I'd like to bring to your attention to the issue of his date of birth. As you will note in the talk page, the issue is a little bit murky.
I'll leave it in your good hands to either take the date off, or to let it remain.
Thanks. --Misha Atreides (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm just doing a quick pass for easy fixes--formatting references, sourcing easy claims to the obits, etc. Settling something more complicated may have be left to he experts. Khazar2 (talk) 08:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 ITNs

Hi,

2 of my ITN nominations yesterday got posted. Sorry, I'm a bit new here, but I've noticed that there's a way for people to get credit, like a barnstar, on their wall.

How would I go about doing this?

Thanks. --Activism1234 15:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! I was happy to see both made it through, and you deserve extra credit for both nomming and updating.
As for the credit templates, they're pretty haphazardly given out. I just formatted my own page at User:Khazar2/ITN and added the userbox from Template:User ITN. The formal template for individual credits is at Template:ITN credit, but it's rarely used except when a kind editor gives it out to others for a day or two. Nothing wrong with posting it to your own user page, though--I've seen others do the same, and you've earned it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks for the info, sounds good. --Activism1234 15:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Child kidnapping

Do you think this story would be notable enough for me to make a Wikipedia article about it?

Source: 1, 2, and now her mysterious death.

It deals with child kidnapping and the rights of the child, which I take to be right up your alley.

Thanks. --Activism1234 22:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say definitely. From your links, it looks like it's been covered internationally, which is usually enough by itself, but also in more than a one-week burst, which should clinch the deal. (Occasionally editors will nom for deletion if a subject only received a day or two of press for a brief incident). I'm taking a mild wikibreak for the week (mostly because I have a few books I want to read and other things to do), so it'll be a little while before I drop by the page. Good luck with it, though! Khazar2 (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate it. --Activism1234 22:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing - what should the title of the article be? The woman's name? Or something more about the story? Tough for me to think of one. Thanks. --Activism1234 22:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Generally when the person becomes notable for/after death then the convention is to title it Death of...Lihaas (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that person was notable before also, in January during the court case, and an editor could'v ejust as well created the article then. The person is probably more notable for the case than the death. --Activism1234 03:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion would be to put it under her name for now, and then write the most comprehensive article you can. If the information seems to logically center around one point or another ("Death of woman", "Woman-Prince controversy", etc.) you can always move it later without any harm done. Have fun with this one! Khazar2 (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. Almost done with it. --Activism1234 15:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Done. --Activism1234 16:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Leyla Yunus

Sorry to say, but as of late I've been less than available on a regular basis, so nominatingf an article for DYK might not be in the cards for me at the time being. However, I definitely am interested in further collaborations on Azerbaijan and related articles. Anything to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of human rights and associated matters. Kurtis (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries--to be honest, it's not something I muck around with much myself any more either. I'll ping you, though, on further Azer stuff that I do. It'll be great to have your input. Khazar2 (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK then. I'm not all that into Azeri topics either, but I thought it'd be good for Wikipedia to have an article relating to the forced evictions. Kurtis (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Édgar Morales Pérez

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updating an article

I need some suggestions on which article to update! Can't decide. Maybe you can give it a try.

Thanks. --Activism1234 17:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most logical spot would be Tana River District at first glance, though there's sourcing problems that would have to be dealt with. If there's too much reporting to logically fit into the article, it could WP:SPINOFF into an article on the event itself. Kudos for tackling this one. Khazar2 (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks. --Activism1234 18:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date MoS script

Hey there,

I recall asking you how you fixed the date formatting in so many places on the 2012 Egyptian-Israeli border attack article. I was hoping it was some program. I believe you told me you did it manually.

Well, I found out about this script that does it for you. You can find out more about it here. But be careful, because you can run into problematic errors with it.

Hope it helps. --Activism1234 01:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does, thanks! I'll have it give it a test spin soon. Khazar2 (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I'm almost done with this article, could still use some copy-editing. Mohamed CJ (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
My pleasure--always feel free to ping me when you want a second pair of eyes. Khazar2 (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Travaux préparatoires of the Geneva Conventions

No doubt you're familiar with the fourth Geneva convention. (full text here)

I was sent a link to this page, which gives the Travaux préparatoires of the Geneva Conventions as published by the Swiss government. It's very interesting to read through, and helps you understand what the convention was about better and what they were referring to.

Anyway, do you know if we have an article on this? If not, I'd be interested in starting one - the only thing is, that website says it's very hard to find them, so I don't imagine we'd have too many reliable sources...

--Activism1234 19:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the blogpost you linked already expired somehow. If reliable sources are few, though, it might be better to merge it into the Fourth Geneva Convention article. Another possibility would be to comment on that article's talk page to see if you can get opinions from editors more expert in this than I; I have to admit that despite the number of current cases I write about, I'm frightfully ignorant of the human rights law that serves as their background. Good luck! Khazar2 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The links should work now. I fixed them. --Activism1234 01:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting stuff. Yeah, I'd say start off at the 4th GC page (working from secondary sources, of course, and not the document itself), and then WP:SPINOFF from there if your discussion grows too great to fit inside. This link would also be worth including at the 4th GC page if we can verify from a primary or secondary source that it's legitimate. Khazar2 (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:A barnstar for you

Thank you very much! It's not every day that I receive a barnstar, but when I do, I feel honored, so you have my gratitude. I'll continue to do what I can to add current significant events and keep Wikipedia up to day. You're always welcome to my help! :) DarthBotto talk•cont 00:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure--thanks for the contributions. Khazar2 (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ([3]). Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Khazar2 (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for looking in, though! Talk-page stalkers always welcome. =) Khazar2 (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and very nice on the template--good luck filling it in! Khazar2 (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your service!! Dominicskywalker (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Very kind of you -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Will probably have to wait till tomorrow, but I'll be glad to. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for the notification--glad to see it up. Khazar2 (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yep, sounds like we're in agreement. Khazar2 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great. :) EkoGraf (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yusak Pakage

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks! And yes, that's Mrs. Khazar's policy as well. Khazar2 (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Nope i dont think it is. My AWB edits don't have the (version) next to it. --Activism1234 20:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not sure, honestly. You might do so just to avoid confusion. Khazar2 (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just download the program from the link I gave you. Bgwhite (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Khazar2&oldid=510672946"