User talk:Khazar2

Happy birthday, MLK

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

Hey, thanks! Can't believe this one hasn't been brought up to at least GA status long before this, but perhaps editors have been intimidated by the prominence of the article? Anyway, it'll be great to try to take it the rest of the way. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to add a thanks for your work on the Martin Luther King, Jr. article, thus far. After getting it up to GA status, I hope you will consider the RFK article. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Hoping that one will be done soon. I'd love to tackle RFK at some point in the future, though for now the goal is to get through all of the most popular WP:WikiProject Human Rights articles. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Technical Question about how to edit

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

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

Hi!

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

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

Thanks! I'm on some new meds that seem to be helping me read for longer periods, which has obviously been a help in research. And on the same note, I'll look forward to reading those, too... -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• There's one last one I'm doing now. I kinda like it, although I doubt one could get it published in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh, f*** the US, then. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• LOL. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh - Thank you for the Barnstar.!

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

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

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

You're welcome; thanks again for your work. I saw some of it in your sandbox via your contributions page and am looking forward to seeing it go "live". And I agree, lots of human rights related articles are simply a disaster, especially anything outside the US/UK. You know, if you haven't already, you should think about signing up for WP:WikiProject Human Rights; it's a pretty quiet WikiProject, but a few of us are trying to get it more active again. A lot of university students writing articles seem to drop by there, too. In any case, keep it up, and happy editing! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What? - University students with library access and articles on tap? I could get used to that! A private reference army ... just what is needed! P^) --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Not to mention a lot of people who read different languages :-) (you know, in case you want to cover Russia or something) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Message received

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

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

Pullies to pulleys

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

• (talk page stalker) Try WP:AWB or a related page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is the place. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

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

I noticed you hadn't actually changed it this time but others have before. Thank you for your efforts, much appreciated. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 03:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Named reference help on Palestine-Israel page

WikiThanks

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

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

Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons) at WP:GA

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

Great, thanks for double-checking that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. On a related note, I just noticed your user page's links section for referencing. That is excellent. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I find it handy to have those to cut-and-paste with. Saves a lot of time when I'm on an editing binge... -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• You're not the only one. For pages I cite often (the database filmindonesia.or.id comes to mind) I just copy existing cites and change the parameters as necessary. BTW, how's MLK going? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's on the home stretch, thanks. The article got a burst of activity on MLK Day (two days ago) so I think the reviewer's giving it a day or two to make sure everything's stable. Seems like we're just about there, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• That explains the feedback which I can barely understand. I've yet to see that tool used properly... they say you need more pictures, or that it needs to be simpler for "kindergarten students", or "needs some better facts"... And of course, there are people who like pie. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Lol. This is a great example of why I voted for the feedback tool's death in the latest RfC on it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• As Tom Clancy says, to paraphrase, if they had polls back in Biblical times Jesus would have gone back to carpentry. You've done a fantastic job. BTW, there's yet another RFC — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! Honestly, that one was pretty much ready to go. I just did a copyedit, cleaned out a bit of dead wood (movies, trivial awards, etc.), and nudged it toward the goal line. Be great to see it get up there, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Like — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I normally steal old citations I've built and modify them, but having the date automatically up-to-date is super fancy and useful. I also cite HighBeam a ton so I'll be copy/pasting from here a bunch now. That feedback is pretty funny and sad btw. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

James Innes GAN

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

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for bringing Martin Luther King, Jr.‎ to Good Article status. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you're fast. =) Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yay! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Already? amazing. this year is gonna be one of the best for human rights related articles. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Trivial?

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

I did actually click through. Can you explain a little more clearly why you think the comments section of this blog is encyclopedic material? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Including Volokh might be okay, but he himself had almost nothing to say about the case; he's just reposting the Bangkok Post story and saying he knows nothing about it. Anyway, if this is a significant opinion about the Somyot case, it shouldn't be hard to find a clearly significant advocate for this opinion (i.e., an article appearing in a significant publication, not a passing comment on a blog by an American who once lived in Thailand). If we need to cite something this marginal to work an opinion into an article, that's usually a sign that the opinion is also so marginal that it shouldn't be included. Remember that the goal here is not to put together independent analysis, but simply to summarize how professionals in the field (academics, reporters, etc.) cover the issue.

As far as addressing systemic bias on Thailand lese majeste topics broadly goes, it seems to me that the ideal solution is not to add more American commentators to the article, but rather to start balancing them with the opinions of Thai commentators on this topic. That's beyond my own language skills, though. Anyway, thanks for your work on these... -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)(edit conflict) If this opinion is important enough, it would be published some where in a reliable source. Blog sites by themselves could be challenged of being not a reliable source and not notable enough to be given a weight. There is more explained in WP:RS. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I defer to your judgement on Volokh, but it is dangerous for a Thai commentator to comment, for the reasons given in the passing comment on a blog by an American who once lived in Thailand. The one by a native Thai that I DID give was in the deleted block quote for which the source is now behind a Bangkok Post paywall that denies access to WebCite®. As for the Isaan Record footnote with its secondary reference to a native Thai opinion, any objection to adding it here: "September 2011. Computer programmer Surapak Puchaieseng ... arrest marked the first lèse majesté case since prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra was elected"?

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

Hmmm. I think adding the Issan Record quotation to the Somyot P. article probably would be out of place--it's a very minor source that doesn't even appear to address the case directly. I'm not familiar with the publication, but at first look, I'd question whether it can be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Many internationally significant publications have written about Thailand's lese majeste laws, so it seems unnecessary to use a self-published site by some American teachers living there.

My suggestion in improving both the main article on LM in Thailand and the Somyot case specifically would be to move toward more recognized sources: major newspapers and magazines, academic papers from databases, etc. See what these sources have to say and then summarize the major trends or lines of thought. Whatever you decide, though, thanks for your interest in working on these, and on fighting systemic bias generally; our coverage of Thailand is still really spotty, so editors like yourself are a big help. Are you a member of WP:CSB? If not, you should definitely think about joining! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm frankly puzzled as to why someone professing an interest in "systemic bias that naturally grows from ... contributors' demographic groups" keeps asking for sources from demographic groups that have not taken an interest, while blocking access to the few that have. Isaan Record was created by a particular demographic group for the same purpose as another created Asian Correspondent, with the significant difference that the former demographic group risk their freedom by publishing from Thailand and the latter operate from the UK: though the risk of being in Thailand is shared by the latter's Bangkok Pundit and Saiyasombut & Siam Voices Have you clicked through to chilling effect? --Pawyilee (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's try to keep some perspective. The two sources you've proposed adding to the Somyot article are 1) a comment by an unverified user on a blog, presumably American; and 2) an independent website founded by American teachers that lasted for only a year, that doesn't even mention Somyot.[1] Am I blocking Americans as a demographic group? Are you concerned that American opinions are underrepresented on Wikipedia? I feel like I'm losing track of what this conversation is even about.

I'm probably already going into broken record territory, so I'll stop after this, but I wanted to say one more time that the important thing is to try to find quality sources--not a random comment that you scraped off of the wall of somebody's blog because you happen to agree with the sentiment. If tomorrow someone posts on a wordpress site that "Barack and Michelle Obama is big homosexuals, for realz!", should we add that opinion to their articles? There are a million opinions about any subject out there, but the significant ones are those that come from acknowledged professional or expert sources.

If you don't find the above persuasive, I guess we can go to WP:THIRD to get a third opinion about whether that guy's comment on a blog post rises to encyclopedic significance. But for now, I'm going to respectfully beg off-- I respect the vehemence of your views, but I feel like this has turned into a very time-consuming discussion on a very basic point. Sorry I can't help you further with this, and I do wish you luck on future contributions in this area. -- Khazar2 (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've said I'm not a scholar and would differ to your judgement. I'm sorry I suffer from Asperger syndrome and talk too much. However, you still disparage a commentator with quite a record at DuckDuckGo, and failed to realize you had linked to a WebCite archive of a farewell article from the then-editors of Issan Record. I'm happy to inform you it has resumed publication. Before you render judgement, please ask the Duck about Jim Gutel, and check out About Isaan Record. --Pawyilee (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

PS I may be annoying you, but this discussion has helped me a lot. By clicking thru to the Duck's article, I learned it has !Bang command, and asked Duck to tell me about it. Subsequently, I got links of the kind you seek with !Academic Lèse majesté in Thailand. I hope this repays your putting up with me. --Pawyilee (talk) 08:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The Yew Tree Ball

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

GA reviews

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

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

GA review

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

Thanks for renominating that one. And yep, anyone can review it! I think I may let someone more knowledgeable take this review, though. Good luck and thanks for your work on it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sir i think u hav many friends on wiki who can review articles well. can u pls consult any of them? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that I have any who particularly know about South Asian film, but you might ask at WP:WikiProject India or WP:WikiProject Film. Sometimes Good Article reviews have a 1-3 month wait, unfortunately. Good luck with it! I hope the review goes well. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

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

Re: Customer Loyalty (The Office)

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

Hey

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

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

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

Doing pretty good--the whole Khazar family is sick with winter colds, but we're sneezing our way through. How about you?

As for collaborations... Over the next few days I'll be working on minor figures from the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration from some books I have checked out, but after that I'll be working on Anonymous (group) to try to get it to GA level. There's a few editors there who have offered to help, too. That one should be ripe for collaboration--a huge popular topic, with almost all its sources available through Google. There's also several editors working to revise Christian Science at the moment, though I think that's winding down. That's all that's on my own radar at the moment but you could always ask at one of the Wiki projects, too. Hope that helps! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

We're doing fine overall here in one of Western Canada's major cities. It's cold where I live (well below -20°C), but I'm feeling pretty well.

Thanks for the heads up, I appreciate it. Lately I've been trying to make improvements to Joseph Stalin. It's a big job to be sure, but it can be done. I find his regime to be fascinating in how horrifically oppressive it was. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that is a big job. Good luck with it. Yet another article in the "I can't believe we haven't made this a Good Article yet" category. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Azimzhan Askarov

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

Thanks

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

You're very welcome. It's one of Mrs. Khazar's all-time favorites, so she'll be happy to hear about this one in the morning. Despite the hundreds of times I've heard this song, it wasn't until just now that I understood what it was about... -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and if you wish, you can search through Azerrad's book on Amazon.com to double-check my references to that work (though apparently you have to sign in with an account to view more than a few sample pages). And though I do own the DVD, there's fan-uploaded bits of the Classic Albums documentary on the YouTubes if you feel the need to double-check that source too. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Adjusting systemic bias in Thailand

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

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

Thank you!

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

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

Precious anniversary

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

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

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

Thanks so much!! I forgot it was my anniversary, too. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I miss PumpkinSky, again (seems familiar?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: A barnstar for you!

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

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

Christian Science

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