User talk:Khazar2/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Lowell review

Thank you for the review! Best. Jpcohen (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Wheel of Fortune

Addressed all your issues in the GA nomination. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Took care of that one too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I removed that section since I couldn't find any solid sources for its ratings vs. Judge Judy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Searching for Sugar Man

Hi, I undid your deletion on this article because I think you forgot that in the movie itself the censorship in the apartheid regime was in effect and that no information on foreign artists were available. Please respond here so we can avoid needless editing back and forth. // Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by NiklasBr (talk • contribs) 19:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I understand that the film discusses the apartheid censorship, but the film (at least the version I just watched) nowhere makes the case that it's omitting information about Rodriguez's previous tours because of it; that's the part that seems original research. Perhaps we can continue this discussion on the article talk page so others can join? Again, thanks for your courtesy in dropping me a note, and for your work on this interesting film. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The Holocaust

Hi: I have been giving a quick look at this article as I know you are interested in bringing it to GA. I believe it would be good if the points being made could be done with less direct quotes by authors and historians. Some copy-edit with cites could be transferred over from such articles as Himmler and Einsatzgruppen, which are already at GA. Further, some photos should be removed and/or moved per MOS:IMAGELOCATION in some parts as I note some text squeezing. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions; I agree on both points. (I should add I haven't really started work on this one yet; I'm hoping to really dive in around August or so.) An obvious priority is going to be reducing the length (110 kb/18000 words!), which I suspect is going to be an unpopular process there.

And thanks particularly for pointing out Himmler and Einsatzgruppen; I'll definitely make use of both as I gear up. I'm not an expert in this area, so it'll be good to have the list of sources from those articles as a road-map. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Khazar2. I haven't made my mind up yet as to whether I will participate in improving The Holocaust. I am sending you an email with more thoughts on that. Here are three books I have used lately that would be useful:

• Browning, Christopher R. (2004). The Origins of the Final Solution : The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942. Comprehensive History of the Holocaust. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 0-8032-1327-1.
• Longerich, Peter (2010). Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280436-5.
• Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-00239-9.

  -- Dianna (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Wildlife (La Dispute album) GA1

Hello, thank you all those months ago for reviewing the La Dispute (band) album Wildlife. It's a shame it didn't make it's way into the Good Article list but I'm hear to ask about improvements to promote it again soon. Do you believe the only real issue with it was minor grammar tweaks? Because the issue I have is that I though we are given time to make amendments rather than just a quick fail for grammar. Is there any areas that need attending? (e.g. sources, images, structure). Hope you contact me soon. Jonjonjohny (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is up to the discretion of the reviewer. For me, things like repeated missing words and incomplete sentences go beyond "tweaks" to suggest that the article didn't have basic proofreading before its nomination, and the problems there seemed varied and extensive even on a superficial look. Considering the large review backlog, I generally don't feel that it's a good use of reviewer time to do significant copyediting on behalf of the reviewer. (Other WikiProjects like WP:GOCE do exist for this purpose, though, if you're looking for outside help.) If you feel the issue's been resolved and the article's ready to go, you're welcome to renominate it at any time.

I certainly don't mean any of this to be discouraging--I'm glad for your work on this article, and I hope it gets to GA on its next pass! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

Just a heads up, I've migrated the cover to Commons as it appears to be PD. Engraving is almost 150 years old, and the author has been dead for almost 120 years. Additions are too simple to draw a new copyright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

GA review

I had nominated Parasakthi (1952 film) for becoming a GA on 27 May 2013, but it is still awaiting a review. As an expert reviewer and due to the wide variety and types of articles u have reviewed, are u interested to review this one as well? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but probably not for a while. Unfortunately, GAN has a significant backlog, so I generally take things from the back end of the list unless it's something I'm particularly interested in/specialized in. Thanks for your work on this nomination, though! Whether it's me or someone else who ultimately reviews it, I hope it goes well. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Henry Ward Beecher GAN

I'll be happy to review, but I rather suspect you'd get better-informed consideration from an American reviewer rather than from my English self. I'll leave it a week and if no better volunteer has been recruited I'll wade in, if that seems sensible to you. Tim riley (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That sounds great. FWIW, I'd actually be glad to have a non-US reviewer to make sure it's all clear to a non-US audience. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can start tomorrow if that's your view of the matter. Very happy to do so. Tim riley (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Terrific--will look forward to your thoughts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

If you enjoyed Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, hopefully you might also like Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

The book is quite a fascinating read.

I hope you're doing well, — Cirt (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I might take a look. Good luck with the nomination. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Hopefully I won't have to wait too long, I'll try to pitch in and help out with the review process for others at WP:GAN to help cut down the backlogs. — Cirt (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Thanks for the review of Jan Dekert :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre Opens June 19

Hello again! Now that we have enough recruiters (for now) to launch the Recruitment Centre, the opening date for the centre is set for Wednesday June 19, 2013. To help "expose" the Recruitment Centre, ideas on how to promote it will be helpful. I have already taken a few steps to do this: A quick mention in next weeks Signpost, a possible mention on everyone's watchlist, mention in the GA tabs, and userboxs. Also, spreading the "news" from 'Word of mouth' will probably come in handy as we can spread information to WikiProjects/users to inform them about the centre. Any other ideas should be mentioned on one of the talk pages at the Recruitment Centre or on my talk page. Just to clarify some things before we begin recruiting: When getting your recruitee to review a nomination, do not let them reviewer one of your nominations (if you have any). Step 3 in the "The Process" section at Recruiter Central is only a guide. You can take a completely different approach if you want as long as you cover the same material; however, steps 1,2, and 4 a/b must be followed. Don't force your recruitee into reviewing one of the nominations from nominators in the "Nominators That Are OK With A Recruitee Reviewing" list. If they want to review a different nomination, there's nothing to worry about, just let them. :) For the time being, you can only recruit a maximum of two recruitees at the same time. (You can recruit only one at a time if you want). That's pretty much it for now. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.--Dom497 (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

13th and 14th amendments

Hi. Regarding the 13th and 14th amendments contributions:I would love to do it, but due to health problems I am not able to do it. Sorry. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you're having health problems; hope things get better soon. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you to copy edit and to review the Eyeshield 21 article. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Gaddafi's awards

I think that that's a fair point that you have there, Khazar. Maybe we should take it to Talk:Muammar Gaddafi and discuss it there, where other editors can engage as well ? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Good idea--done. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

No one else seems to have commented yet. Unfortunately, the Gaddafi talk page is generally quite neglected, but there are a few issues under discussion there that you might be able to give some guidance on. No pressure though! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that gives you a blank check to rewrite that until someone else objects; if there's a revert, we can discuss further. I'll take a look at the other threads later today, too, to see if I can offer anything useful... -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Khazar. If there's every anything that you'd like me to take a look at on any pages where I might be able to help, feel free to let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverts

They are all official retires if you want to check go to MLB.com and look at one of the retired peoples bios that I did then look at someone who is still playing and there is a difference than the dates are from MLBreference.comKingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 23:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks--I was just messaging you about this, so let's keep this together on your talk page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

They didn't all retired today they had retired in the past and no one changed them so I took it upon myself to do it since I figured nobody else was going to.Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 23:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I know you didn't mean to doubt me I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia so thank you for the tip man I can use all of the help that I can get! No problem I love working on Baseball articles and Football articles because I check those websites everyday and if I see that someone has retired I figure nobody had shown that they had retired so I like doing that so anytime you need help with a baseball article or something like that just message me I will be glad to help :)Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 23:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Will do man I wish they had like a friends list or something like that on here hahaha so you can add the people that you need to help you with or something that should be added here on Wikipedia.Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 23:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. But see how that page is set up like that? That is what MLB.com does for retired players also look at just for example Armando Gabino it shows him as either free agent, released, signed. Or to show what I did with Aubrey Huff click on the right hand side on MLB.com choose the 2012 or 2011 year and the team san Francisco giants and it will show the retired thing on the giants websitKingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 23:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi Khazar2, I've just completed my first GA Review (2012-13 York City F.C. season) and I was hoping a more experienced reviewer could give it a quick inspection. If you're not too busy, would you be able to do this? If not, no problem, but would you be able to point me to someone who might be able to? Thanks. ScoobyHugh (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be very glad to, and thanks for doing a review! I should be able to get to this by the end of the day, if not in the next hour or two. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

That's great, thanks a lot. Many thanks for the message on my talk page too! I shall definitely be back at GA Nominations in the near future. ScoobyHugh (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

That'd be terrific... we're always behind on sports reviews in particular. For some reason that category gets a lot of nominations, but few reviewers. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review for Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

Howdy- I completed my review. I had a few very minor errors with the article that need to be addressed before I can promote it to GA status. I put it on hold for a week. It shouldn't take very long, but I was a little picky. I am really impressed with the writing style and the work you put into the article over the last couple of weeks. Thanks for the hard work. I'll talk to you soon. PrairieKid (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! I think I've implemented or responded to each of your suggestions, and thanks for those too--they're very helpful. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Prisoner of conscience

Hiya, do you have a reference for Annakurban Amanklychev and Sapardurdy Khadzhiev being released? Haminoon (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3]. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Dunno how I missed that. Haminoon (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries. It's not like it was a front page headline. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Please

You are talking to a sock there at Criscos talk. Please understand that sats 15:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the heads up. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to lodge something at An/I but the edit conflict seems to be eternal :( sats 15:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the procedure is to go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations rather than AN/I; you might try there. Good luck! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Richwales's future editing plans

Hi. Thanks for contacting me. I've been busier with real-world stuff this year than in the past, so I haven't been quite as able to whittle away at my to-do list as I might have hoped. If you can do a good job of cleaning up Dred Scott or Gideon, by all means go ahead. As for our past interactions, Snottywong's editor interaction analyzer tool says we both spoke up (albeit indepdendently) on the Will Beback ban appeal discussion a few months ago, and we might or might not have seen each other on a couple of other pages. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can do a job of cleaning them up... In all seriousness, it'll be a while before I get to either. I'm planning to take on all three of the Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution first, and then try to organize a team revision of The Holocaust, so we'll see if I come out the other side of that in any state short of total burnout. But Dred and Gideon seem like comparatively narrower topics that could be more easily brought up to GA; we'll see. Anyway, if your schedule frees up and you ever want to collaborate on any of these, just let me know. In the meantime, thanks again for all your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"Lovebird"

Hello, Khazar2. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Lovebird_(song)/1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Recruitment Centre Now Open

Due to a personal emergency, I've opened the Recruitment Centre a bit early. There are currently 3 users that would like to learn how to review nominations who can be found here. Because there are only 3 recruitees and 8 recruiters at this time, please limit the number of recruiters you handle to one (just for now). If you have any questions feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thanks for volunteering!--Dom497 (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so there's been a minor change in plans. Instead of asking a recruitee to be their recruiter, wait for them to message you and then accept or decline (accepting is preferable).--Dom497 (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Sorry if I jumped the gun on that. I'm eager. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Not your fault at all, it was mine.--Dom497 (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I constantly see your name popping up on my watchlist, usually with tedious edits using AWB fixing hyphens or something. Thanks for your dedication to tedious tasks such as that, as well as your dedication to GA reviews and writing good articles. You are an awesome Wikipedian! Go Phightins! 20:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about Annie Duke

Hi there, Khazar2—I can't recall if we've crossed paths before, but you have recently made an edit to an article I've worked on, and I wonder if you'd be willing to look at a small issue. As the subject header indicates, that's Annie Duke, which recently someone added a COI tag to. And I was a COI editor involved in the page, only I did not edit the article but proposed a better-cited and more-neutral version, which another editor moved into place.

The tag was added by an IP editor with no explanation on the Talk page, so I don't think it's a serious claim of there being a problem with the article, but an anonymous antagonist of Ms. Duke (as a poker celebrity, she has some). Are you willing to consider removing that tag? If you're at all skeptical of my involvement, I'd recommend having a look at my explanation of how I improved the article on the Talk page. Let me know when you have a moment. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 02:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I have no problem removing a COI tag without a corresponding explanation, and I can't find one in this case. (the tag appears to be the IP's only edit.) Like the POV tag, the rules at Template:COI are:

"Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other {{pov}} tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame.

Do not use this tag if you can quickly solve the problem, e.g., by removing peacocking and puffery or by reverting the blanking of well-sourced criticism.

Like the other neutrality-related tags, this tag may be removed by any editor after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found."

It seems to meet the second and third criteria for removal. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Terrific, thanks a bunch. I hadn't looked at the template guidelines recently, but I'm glad they do say that! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Fuck A-Class review?

So Fuck (film) had a pretty successful peer review after your GA Review.

I was wondering if you thought it might be worthwhile to have an A-Class review through WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech, or just proceed on to WP:FAC from here?

I don't think I've ever really participated in an A-Class review before so I wanted to check to see if you think it'd be worth the time or just copyedit some more before FAC?

— Cirt (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm honestly unfamiliar with much of the process beyond GA. Glad to hear it's continuing to advance, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay no worries, and thanks, I'll keep you posted, — Cirt (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep up the good Good work

		The Good Article Reviewer's Medal of Merit
		I am seeing your name pop up at all the GA pages and have been impressed by your work in this area for a while now. Thanks for helping keep the GA ship afloat. AIRcorn (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It's been a really rewarding area to work in--lots of good content, lots of good people. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Strong support! I have one open, btw, including the line on top of my user, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

And thank you too! I might have to review that if nobody beats me to it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Law School of Beirut

Hello there, I'd like to thank you in advance for taking the time in revewing the article; i'm eager to hear your feedback. Have a nice Friday/weekend. Eli+ 04:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome--you too! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello there, I think I'm done with the article. Do my changes suffice or do you think there's still something missing? Did the article leave you with unanswered questions and what may be areas for improvement? thanks again. Eli+ 08:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for all your hard work in reviewing Government in Medieval Scotland. As ever, an exemplary review.--SabreBD (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks--my pleasure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Mombasa

Hello Khazar2,
I've seen that your last contribution to the Mombasa article has been reverted by AfricaTanz. He did the same many times to all mines without any warning, and in spite of the Wikipedia policy (there is no reverting for sources laking : he must have put a "" instead) : I asked him why and he insulted me and banned me from his talk page, deleting my messages. If he annoys you again, you can kindly send him this template : Template:Verify source. Cheers, FredD (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fred, it looks like his primary intention was to revert the unsourced addition of a user before me, rather than my minor hyphen fix. I've got no objections. Sorry to hear of your own conflict with him, however. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Khazar2 ~ just wanted to let you know how much i appreciate you stopping by. The "Editor of the week" was the nicest thing that has ever happened to me on Wikipedia, and your support of the project has a lot to do with that. May you be blessed. petrarchan47tc 22:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome--it was well-deserved! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

With meringue! How did you know? I just baked a couple of lemon meringue pies on Saturday.

Thanks as always for your thorough GA review work! Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! Just drop one of those pies in the mail and we'll call it even. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Created new typo rule: "Mid-"

Hi Khazar2! Noticed your recent edit to Bruce Springsteen where you were using AWB to replace "mid 1971" → "mid-1971". I added a new AWB typo rule for this to make it easier for everyone to make these changes. Please let me know if you have any issues with the rule. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Batty. I've been using it for a while and haven't had any issues so far. I'll let you know should any arise, however. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Windsor

Let's hold off for a day or two before adding material about this case to the 14A article. The striking down of Section 3 of DOMA was based on equal due process, equal protection, and federalism grounds. Even though this was a 5A case, what it says regarding due process and equal process likely signals how the majority feels regarding State bans on SSM. After a day or two there should be enough reliable sources for adding material regarding this ruling and a potential future one regarding SSM and the 14A. SMP0328. (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I jumped the gun on some confused reporting; apologies for the bad insertion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Nomination

Hello, Khazar2. You have new messages at Talk:Anonymous (group)/GA2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• Nice job bringing Anonymous to GA status. It's a very complicated article—I don't think I can tackle one like those yet! Hope you have a great start of the weekend. Cheers! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 01:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! I have to admit I was intimidated by that one, but it proved surprisingly easy once I got my hands on the right source (Parmy Olson's book) to help me organize it. I mean, as much as a subject like that can be organized... -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela

Thought I would congratulate you on your efforts of portraying the great man. Aaroncrick ^TALK 00:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind! The real credit, though, belongs to User:Midnightblueowl--I did some cutting and cleanup, but she did the real heavy lifting of research and rewriting. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise Khazar, but it was a joint effort! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review!

Also, thanks very much for the barnstar. Have a great day! Moisejp (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

GA review renominated

Just want to let you know that all the issues for Romeo and Juliet: Sealed with a Kiss should be fixed by now and I've renominated the article for GA. Thanks for the review! EditorE (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again for your work on it. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to be reviewing the article again? EditorE (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's best that it get a fresh set of eyes on it. I do appreciate your double-checking the sources and fixing up the article so promptly, though, and wish you the best of luck. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson-Hemings controversy

I see you just withdrew your GA nomination of Jefferson-Hemings controversy. I am training under User:Ed! to become a GA Reviewer. I'd like to review the article if you'd renominate it. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer, but on re-reading the article this morning, I've got some reservations about whether it meets the criteria in its current form; a bit more citation is needed, but more seriously I'm not sure we've got the POV balance right yet. I don't mind renominating if you'd like to look at it for training purposes, but I don't think it's ready for GA. I do have some other American history nominations up, though, if you're interested in any: Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic all touch on slavery, too. In any case, thanks for your interest in reviewing! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll review American Creation. I should have this done in less than seven days. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look forward to your comments. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Great North 10K

Hi Khazar2, if you get the chance could you give Great North 10K a quick run through your clever AWB thingy, please? The article was nominated for DYK a few days ago but it's been expanded quite a bit since then. I can't use AWB as I'm an Apple lover and I think its Windows based? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! You get extra "brownie points" in the way of a chocolate glaze for such a prompt and efficient service as well! SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Delicious, thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Since you're taking requests... List of works by Chairil Anwar. Finished that one right quickly, I did. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Oddly, I can't get AWB to acknowledge this article exists--perhaps because it's too new to be picked up on the search? Let me try again in a few hours. Btw, I do run the DYK list daily now, so anything you nominate there I'll end up getting. Don't hesitate to ask individually, though, b/c it's only a minute's work to add and run an article.-- Khazar2 (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done No issues found. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, age is a consideration for AWB? Cool. BTW, how do you like the new list? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• I realized I was using it a bit stupidly; normally AWB relies on Wikipedia's search function, which always seems to lag slightly (an hour or so) behind the current version. But there is a way to type in a title directly, which I then did. I didn't have a chance to read much of the new list yet, but the images are really rockin'... I'll have to look in more detail when this hits the main page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was lucky with images... the Jassin book had three rather nice ones and all were PD. I have a (free; PD-Simple) cover of a standalone version of "Pulanglah Dia Sianak Hilang" in the pipeline; that'll end up in #Translated prose.

Delisting

Hi Khazar,

I was wondering if you could quickly explain to me how to delist a GA? If you don't mind ofcourse, ★★RetroLord★★ 19:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Obviously, the first step is some kind of reassessment. Once that's done, the steps are listed at WP:GAR:

"If the article still does not meet the criteria, you can delist it. To do this, remove the article from the relevant list at Wikipedia:Good articles, remove {{Good article}} from the article, delete the {{GAR/link}} template from the talk page and update the {{ArticleHistory}} template on the talk page (see example). Also change any project assessments on the talk page."

The example didn't copy over in my cut-paste, but you get the idea. Let me know if this answers your question--cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thats good, thanks. The reassessment of Pauline Kael is more or less done, would you mind if I delisted it? We've both voted on the page and I thought i'd stop it dragging on as its pretty clear cut. ★★RetroLord★★ 19:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's clear cut, but my understanding is that as involved users we're technically not allowed to close it per "Guidelines for closing a community reassessment discussion" at GAR. Now that your !vote is added somebody might be willing to put it out of its misery, though. You might add a close request to WT:GAN. If that doesn't work I think there's a close request board we could turn to. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Khazar2 :) ★★RetroLord★★ 19:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Black suffrage

"... not just a concept pertaining to the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution anymore!" But what started out as a simple disambiguation page became a sprawling index of Black suffrage articles from all over Wikipedia. What do you think? groupuscule (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Great idea. That US-centric redirect definitely needed to be fixed, and your DAB-to-be-converted-to-concept-article seems like a good step in that direction. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. Wondering: are there any sources that address "Black suffrage" as a global phenomenon? These might be helpful for framing the storyline and deciding what to include. groupuscule (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Please postpone Imru' al-Qays review period

Hi Khazar,

Thanks for starting a review of the Imru' al-Qays article and providing some helpful suggestions. As I mentioned on the talk page of the review, it would also be very helpful if you could postpone the review period so that it begins after 9 July 2013. Until that day I will be studying for candidate exams for my doctoral program and will not have any time to dedicate to the article.

Thanks for your understanding! Maitham d (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good luck with your exams! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I just wanted to say thanks for all the edits you do with AWB to copyedit articles, especially mine. Those checks are gratefully appreciated. Miyagawa (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! Thank you for continuing to improve our Star Trek coverage--I've been really impressed with your output lately. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis

FYI, I have re-nominated Jefferson Davis for GA. Thanks for your previous input; I believe all of those issues, plus more, have been dealt with now. Omnedon (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

That's great to hear. I'm going to let someone else do the second review to see what concerns they can spot that I missed, but I'll watchlist the new review and see if there's any way I can pitch in. Thanks for your work on this--it's a massively viewed article, so it's good to see it getting polished. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much!

	Catnip high cat & some roses for you!
	A token of appreciation for your help in reviewing Law School of Beirut and for your patience :) Many thanks Eli+ 05:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, my pleasure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Non free posters

Do you really think that non free poster should be in the body of the article? I thought non free posters should only be in infoboxes but maybe i'm wrong. Koala15 (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What is this in reference to? -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

My edit on Jurassic Park (franchise) you sent me warnings about it. Koala15 (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see the confusion. My note was only about using edit summaries (which you really should do--it's a big help to other editors you're working with). You're looking at the notice from User:GSK about unconstructive editing, underneath. You'll have to ask him about that on his talk page. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Re:GA advice request

Hi there Khazar. To answer your question, instead of going through the archives, you could look at the Checklist that's been assembled by past discussions. One thing I can definitely say is reliable is Computer and Video Games. GamerPro64 14:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks--I'll have to bookmark this. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Article about Kai Holst as GA?

Hi, saw you contributed to Operation Claw and as that article is related to Kai Holst I thought it may be possible to ask you for some help in improving it so it could become GA as it is in Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål and Swedish versions of Wikipedia. Ulflarsen (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

All I did there was change a single typo with AWB; it's not a particular area of interest for me. I wish you luck in your revisions, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Drowning Girl

Thanks for your recent editorial assistance at Drowning Girl. Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, but all I did was add a single hyphen with AWB; though I do like that painting, the article's not a particular area of interest for me. Good luck with the FAC, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup points and star chasing

Hi there- I just read through your userpage, and I just wanted to leave you a note about the WikiCup. I agree with you about the fact that editors often seem more concerned about obscure topics (and yes, I have too, though I've made an effort to write about important fungi as well as newly described ones- Phellinus ellipsoideus, Jew's ear and Fomes fomentarius are all pretty significant in their own ways) and I completely agree that this is a real problem. I'd like to point out that the WikiCup has worked to combat this. It definitely started out with the "all articles are equal" mantra that is so maligned by TCO, but it has made efforts (a leading figure in this has been Casliber, who also runs the Core Contest) to award far more points to important topics than to unimportant ones. For the 2010 competition, all articles were equal. For 2011, this rule was added:

Any article which exists on at least 20 Wikipedias, as of 31 December 2010, as well as any article which appears on the vital level 3 list, scores twice as many points if it appears on did you know, or is promoted to good article, featured article or featured list. Any portal which exists on at least 20 Wikipedias, as of 31 December 2010, scores twice as many points if promoted to featured portal status.

Small, but a step in the right direction. For 2012, it was kept the same, but triple points were awarded for any article on 50 Wikipedias, and quadruple for any article on 100 Wikipedias. This helped encourage the improvement of a great number of highly important topics. To name a few: Frog, Corona Australis, Betelgeuse, William the Conqueror, Pelican and Lettuce all made it to FA status thanks to the efforts of WikiCup participants. This year, bonus points were made linear and more universal, meaning super-important articles receive loads of points, and even articles only on five Wikipedias (so, of a little more significance than your average garage band, moss species or road) gain a few extra points. We've seen loads of people taking advantage of this and working on highly important topics. This last round alone, we've seen an FA on Middle Ages, GAs on Battle of Hastings, James Chadwick, Stanislaw Ulam, Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, a massive expansion of sea (which I'm happy to see you're reviewing at GAC!) and featured portals on sport and geography. That's in the third round- the really big hitters will probably come out in the next couple of rounds. Koala and Norman conquest of England, for instance, are currently at FAC. Of course, I don't want to take away from the incredible work of the various writers of these articles- all were doing excellent work before they became involved with the WikiCup. However, I do hope you can see that the WikiCup does motivate people to work on big topics, as well as star-chasing, and in fact I can say that most of the strongest WikiCup participants are going for these big-hitting articles. It was predicted that the new rules may result in the final round coming down to a competition as to who could get the most points from a single featured article, and as that basically translates to who can promote the most important topic to FA status, that certainly can't be a bad thing for the encyclopedia! J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the note. It's true I was looking more at past WikiCups in making this comment, and I'm glad to hear of the rule changes; I'm only vaguely aware of what happens with it based on what comes through GA. I've tweaked my user page note accordingly. Thanks for all you're doing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: GA review

Thanks a lot for the review. I wasn't really the only responsible one for most of the article. I've just changed it up a bit when I finished playing the game. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		Haven't given out a barnstar in a while, and you're at top of my list. Not sure you've got this one yet? Cheers for all your work at WP:GA. – Shudde talk 12:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I sure haven't. Thanks for thinking of me--I always enjoy adding to my collection of shinies. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Check your edits

I know you're under a lot of pressure to bang out edits as fast as you can, but may I suggest you check them afterwards? [This one] completely breaks the refimprove template at the top of the article (it should be refimprove|date=September 2008 and not just refimprove=September 2008). You clearly didn't bother to look at the page after saving the edit 'cause the mistake is very conspicuous. I suggest you (a) fix it (b) go through some of your recent edits to see what else you've messed up (c) slow down. 87.112.189.139 (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the error; I do make an effort to double-check these, but occasionally one slips past me.

Have you considered creating an account? Please remember that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit--if you see an error, you can jump right in and fix it. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Loring article

So, almost five months after you closed the review, I think I may have finally started giving full attention to it. There has been almost 4K of text removed from the article, so I think some of the issues have been addressed. I'll tackle the family section later, but I just wanted to update you on the progress of everything. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're still working on it. I'll let somebody else take the second review, just to see what suggestions they have that I may have missed, but I'll be happy to see it renominated--good luck! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Your project is breathtaking

Your project to review a GA a day is breathtaking. I hope you can do it in a way that it does not become a slog, but entertains or widens you. Maybe picking the GAs that more appeal to you or concentrating in an area for a while, avoiding topics that bore/annoy you, or whatever.

Good luck on the human rights topics too. I'm quite a criminal, so may need some ACLU librul to protect me from the state in the future (Wiki-metaphorically speaking).

Anyhow, good luck with your health and the little Miss K!

TCO (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind! And yeah, I've been switching up topics a lot and trying to balance ones I really want to review with older submissions. It's actually been quite fun so far; even reviewing topics like fungi species, US highways, etc., is surprisingly educational.

As you probably guessed from my user page, I'm a fan of your work as well--I'm pushing your essay on anyone I can get to read it. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Like. Not to mention a lot of the fungus articles are really well written. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Recruitee

Hi Khazar2, I'm interested in learning how to review good article nominations. I used to edit under a different username, but that was 2 years ago, and I've forgotten how to do most things, hah. Thanks for your consideration! Stratocaster27 (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd be glad to--thanks a lot for your interest in reviewing. It's a pretty easy process--we'll chat a bit about the criteria, I'll show you a few sample reviews I've done, you'll do two or three reviews with me looking over your shoulder, and you'll be all set. I'll set up a centralized page for our discussion sometime today or tomorrow and we'll get rolling. Looking forward to it, -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your readiness. Sounds good. Feel free to contact me on my talk page. Stratocaster27 (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks again for taking the time to review A Thousand Splendid Suns for Good Article status. Also, thank you for the barnstar. I really appreciate both. --1ST7 (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Thanks again for all your hard work on the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Jack the Giant Slayer GA Review

Hello, Khazar2. You have new messages at Talk:Jack the Giant Slayer/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've pretty busy but was planning to get back to this. I hope you will reopen the nomination once I'm done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, but at this point it would be best to just renominate; I'd like to get another editor's eyes on it. I'll be glad to chime in there, though, if there's any questions I can answer or way I can help. Thanks again for your work. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

JTHJ GA

Hello, are you willing to review Jab Tak Hai Jaan for GA? Thanks, ----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 08:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This only seems to have been nominated a week ago. You'll probably have to wait much longer than that for a review, I'm sorry to say; GAN has a 2-4 month backlog. I might take this one in the future, but it'll be a while. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic

The article American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic for comments about the article. Well done! Chris Troutman (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

GA

Hi Khazar, I hate to see your nominations languishing in the waiting list for so long, so I thought I'd ask here if you'd mind if I took another one of your nominations on, seeing as the last one went by so quickly :P? Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 19:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. We're hammering a few final things out 13th Amendment this weekend (a co-nom for me and Groupuscule), so today might not be the best day for that. I'd be glad to see you pick up any other, though! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Slavery by Another Name

Hello! Your submission of Slavery by Another Name at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cambalachero (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	It looks like I've given you a barnstar for your articles, but not a barnstar for the tweaks you make to the work of others. Here's me solving for that :). Copyeditors and GA reviewers do sterling work, we need to spend more time appreciating them. Your reviews are always detailed and thoroughly useful - hopefully I'll see more of them! Ironholds (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That's very kind of you--thanks much! -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Good luck with your GA-review-a-day; it's like the Wiki Cup in reverse :P. Ironholds (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I may have to add that as a quote to my user page... -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

About Tawfik Okasha

No, His Full Name Is Tawfik Yahya Ibrahim Okasha, He Said It Himself ..

Thanks for the reply. The problem is that Wikipedia depends on reliable sources. Is it possible to add a source for your statement? Don't forget, by the way, to sign your posts like this: ~~~~ . That way people can see who's talking. Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust

Do you have Hilberg's Destruction (2003)? If not, you want me to go through and summarise it for you, with page numbers, for you to pick and choose from if you want to when you go through and get the Holocaust article up to GA? LudicrousTripe (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That's an incredibly generous offer. Let me think about it and get back to you, though--it's a lot of work for you to do before I'm sure that I'll need it. I'd certainly welcome your collaboration at any stage. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it with you. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume in the negative, of course! When I see you hacking Holocaust about in my watchlist, I may jump in and assist. Adieu! LudicrousTripe (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That would be great if you plan to work on the Holocaust article. When Diaanna planned to do this I wrote: Editing the Holocaust "The Longerich book is excellent as is the Snyder book, The Bloodlands. They both have Kindle eds. I would encourage you to do some work on this piece. I would be glad to help in any way I can. I have tip toed around substantive edits for a long time now: it is a can of worms full of wiggling personal agendas. One of the reasons it is so long is the inclusion of at least ten subsections under Non Jewish. They don't really belong in this piece, and each has its own WP article, but attempts to remove calls forth accusations of not giving significance to the millions of others who were murdered etc. It is a pity that such an important article has been such an unwieldly mess for a long time already.--Joel Mc (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)" And my comment after Diaanna decided to postpone: A GA Standard for The Holocaust "Thanks for giving this a try. I do understand your decision. It is a weak point in WP that competing agendas can prevent the reasonable development of an article even when one of those agendas is to improve the encyclopedic qualities of an article. I did not know that there was a DRN discussion (I have never done that before) or I might have added something although it is hard for me to understand that a 1977 personal opinion by Simon Wiesenthal--an important historical figure, but not a historian--should be accepted as an authority on the issue at hand when compared to the eminent historians referred to, thus preventing any movement ahead.Joel Mc (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)" I would be glad to help if I can. I have a good personal library and access to a university Library when I am home (about 50% of the year).Joel Mc (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate the note. It seems like there's a lot of editors willing to jump in on this one, but we're all holding off because the obvious difficulties... maybe in August or September we can make a concentrated effort to get a team together and make some progress. I'm sure we'll all disagree on some things, but just having several experienced editors on hand should be a big help. I've been meaning to read Bloodlands for a while now--I'll have to pick up the Longerich, too.

My current project is some improvements at United States Bill of Rights, and when that's done, I'll get some discussion started at Holocaust. (Though obviously you'd be welcome to start sooner than that if you're inclined!) -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)