User talk:Khazar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

DYK for Wardah Hafidz

I have brought Wardah Hafidz to roughly 1650 chars and nominated it at DYK with you as co-author. It seems that there may be more English-language sources, like here and here. (Side note: If you are looking for English-language sources for Indonesia-related articles, trying a site search of Jakarta Post or Jakarta Globe... it works well for recent events, although it is horribly lacking for historical issues.) Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow--thanks so much. I'll keep the JP tip in mind for the future; actually, I might try to expand some of the articles I mentioned to you from that right now. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome. We are lucky that they have pretty good records for the past ten years or so, especially the Post. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Manal al-Sharif

NW (Talk) 00:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bambang Harymurti

I have expanded Bambang Harymurti by roughly 1500 chars and plan to nominate him for DYK with you as the co-nom. Hopefully the hook can include that he originally wanted to be an astronaut :-) Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL, is that true? Consider me hooked. I'll look over the new additions in an hour or two. Thanks for the collaboration, this has been fun. Khazar (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Jakarta Post says he qualified as a potential candidate and everything. Much obliged, this has been fantastic. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Amnesty Photos

My god, reading the Amnesty International page is incredibly disheartening D: Makes me appreciate my dictator-free basement dwelling lifestyle. Great job with the Ales Bialatski page! I'm an infobox junkie, so I went ahead and added one in. I may try to contact Amnesty International as well, maybe second try is the charm; they would be an excellent source of photos. I'm also tempted by the approach you tried on U Ohn Than, I'll consider that as an alternative. Sloggerbum (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Death of Selena

Hey, I was wondering if you can use the AWB like you did to The New Girl in Town? Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Once you've got enough mainspace edits (maybe you already do) I'd suggest downloading it yourself at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser; it's a great tool. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh alright, well thank you! AJona1992 (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dandeniya Gamage Jayanthi

Materialscientist (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Paul Kamara

Mifter (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ali Salem

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Modeste Mutinga

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Thepchai Yong

Hello! Your submission of Thepchai Yong at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Muhammad Al-Saqr

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Stutter (Elastica song)

First of all, thanks for reviewing my hook. Second, I did cite the sources that I used for the hook facts. They're here and here, and these links are in the article's Reference section, as well. About the hook's wording, the source I found used the phrase "male impotence", so I guess for the sake of accuracy that's what I would prefer to use :) - PM800 (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the quote is on page 95 of the Harris book, second paragraph from the bottom... - PM800 (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks again. - PM800 (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad Al-Saqr

Hi. As far as I can tell, they are the same person. Cheers. --Meno25 (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nadira Isayeva

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Wardah Hafidz

Could you take a look at the nom? An IP user has expressed concern about the phrasing, but I see nothing wrong. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Replied there. Khazar (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply. I've agreed to the hook, so we just need to wait for someone to review. Sleep well! Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Omar Belhouchet

Materialscientist (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Aung Pwint

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi. How do I cite a hook up in DYK??? Could you help me, please? Best regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, like this? Regards; --Nephiliskos (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I`ve chosen verena Lepper as source, since she gives the most actual and accurate translation, especially of the talk between Dedi and the king.--Nephiliskos (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ahmad and Tomy

Thanks for fixing those references; I've started using "cite web" consistently, so hopefully that doesn't happen again. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all--it's a small price to pay for those terrific additions to that article. As you saw, I had one of my own to fix too. No big deal either way (though Barking was right to get us to standardize it). Cheers, Khazar (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it will make improving the article easier. BTW, since you are interested in human rights you may be interested in reading May 1998 riots of Indonesia; I'm fairly proud of the expansion that Arsonal and I did (mainly him though). He's thinking of nominating it for GA eventually. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Just read through and left a few comments. Good stuff! Khazar (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers! Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Input request

Hello again. I'm wondering if you could lend a bit of input? I am working on User:GainLine/Christopher Hutton, about an MI9 operative who was responsible for most of the escape kit used by the Allies in WW2 and going to bring it to DYK. I think it has potential to do really well so I want to write as strong a hook as possible. I'd really value your input on suggestions. I was thinking of something surrounding the Monopoly sets and trying to work in the "get out of jail free card" or something to do with the number of escapers using the equipment. I'd also like to try and use the pic of the escape map in the nom and I reckon the Daily Mail or ABC refs are probably the strongest. Not asking much I know! Anything you have to add would be greatly appreciated. The article's still a work in progress so feel free to make change as you see fit. (if you like of course!)GainLine ♠ _♥ 11:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad to. Replied there. Khazar (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Women in Bahrain

Need a 2nd opinion on this at T:TDYK. BarkingMoon (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ricardo Uceda

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

Yeah. Please don't remove links like you did. You cut off Daniel Granada!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The article had several redlinks to linguists and, in one case, a private tutor of the 19th century. Generally my policy is to remove redlinks to scholars who don't have a clear claim to notability on the assumption that should those articles be added to Wikipedia, the link can easily be replaced by the person creating that article. Anyway, if you think all those individuals are likely to be added, it's an easy fix to switch them back. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No probs, but note that all articles which I think should be written I red link. Red links are not pretty but many articles such as this reveal a lot of missing articles. This is the way wikipedia should grow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I agree. I've just built up the habit from seeing some other DYK noms redlink every scholar, reporter, and eyewitness they cite. I'll definitely keep your approach in mind the next time I review one of your pieces, though. Again, kudos to a good expansion. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Chuy etymology section has been duly referenced by Dr. Bloefld.--Nvvchar. 15:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Nvvchar. 16:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Kudos to Khazar (maybe khudos as well)

Thanks for your encouraging message at WT:DYK about my little project to build Wikipedia's pages of interesting creatures. Khudos for encouraging a relative novice, and for your own grander project as evidenced here on your talk page. Sharktopus^talk 13:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Wardah Hafidz

--Calmer Waters 19:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bambang Harymurti

Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Beatrice Mtetwa

Materialscientist (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bill Foley

Materialscientist (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Common Statement?

I started working up a combined draft of the points made by apparently like-minded people at User:Wnt/User_Faction/santorum#A_mutually_compatible_point_of_view. You're one of the 11 I think should be compatible. I'd like to get as many points as possible that everyone involved can agree on completely, so I'd much appreciate it if you could endorse the statement, and/or specify which points you reject or need reworked or explained. (and in all fairness there are a few I can see need work). Interested? Wnt (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ahmad Taufik

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tomy Winata

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ales Bialatski

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dan Savage DYKs

I'd like to get this business of the Dan Savage DYKs resolved once and for all, but it's clear now that some people do not want to see the articles appearing on DYK under any circumstances, regardless of the lack of any policy basis for such a veto. I suggest that we should put the matter to a special vote on T:TDYK where the DYK community as a whole can cast a straight up or down vote. What do you think? Prioryman (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Replied there. Khazar (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that people right now are !voting on a whole bunch of different issues when they talk about those DYKs, including feelings about the current disputants. What might be easier would be to !vote on two hypothetical cases where somebody in good faith has DYKed several articles about books by a political figure where 1) you despise that figure and all his doings and 2) you admire that figure and consider his work important. Because really you should vote exactly the same in those two hypothetical cases, and that opinion should cover the Dan Savage case. My feeling is that if the articles and hooks are NPOV, we have no policy on timing how often a topic X gets into DYK, even if topic X is a commercial product or a controversial politician we might hypothetically be "promoting." Sharktopus^talk 13:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is the same as yours, though I worry an up/down vote right now on policy or hypothetical cases would only be an up/down vote on the Savage hooks by proxy. In any case, you should definitely chime in on WP:DYK as well; as somebody who occupies a reasonable middle ground on some of these issues, you might be able to help break through the stalemate. Enjoy the day! Khazar (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The hypothetical discussion is a good idea, but as you say there is a risk that it would be hijacked by the Savage partisans. It's for that reason that I think a separate up/down vote on the Savage hooks would be preferable (though there's no reason that can't take place at the same time as the hypothetical discussion). What I have in mind is adding a section on T:TDYK, with a preamble outlining the situation followed by something along these lines:

A proposal has been put forward at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Compromise proposals to resolve the dispute over the timing of the DYKs. In order to obtain a consensus, it has been brought here for the community to make a decision. Please indicate below whether you support this proposal:

To run the following five previously approved hooks at intervals of one week apart each.

[list of hooks]

Under that, editors would be invited to say whether they supported or opposed the proposal. Any thoughts? I think it would be helpful to (1) resolve this once and for all - the talk page discussion is getting nowhere - and (2) get more visibility of the issue, so that whatever decision is reached has the maximum level of support. Prioryman (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum

Hi Khazar, responding to your comments at RfAR, I think everyone agrees that the campaign ought to be covered in Wikipedia. The problem with the current article is that what it covers, and what is notable, is Dan Savage's campaign, rather than the neologism itself; yet the article is titled for the neologism, which no dictionary of slang includes (and which Partridge, a standard work in the field, specifically named as one of the neologisms they chose to exclude; see Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Partridge_revisited).

It is in a way unfortunate that the RfC combines the issues of renaming, redirecting and merging; I think there is broad consensus for the rename, but less consensus for the merge and redirect. A rename alone would address most editors' concerns that the article in itself is part of the campaign to spread the neologism.

As regards my concerns about Cirt, they are summarised at User:Jayen466/Political_activism. There simply have been too many cases of Cirt placing political campaign material on project main pages, and there is conclusive proof that this was part of externally organised campaigns. It shows form, and undermines the assumption of good faith in relation to this article. Perhaps, if you read the page, you'll understand my concerns better.

Personally, I see the BLP priority as renaming the article; and like others, I am filled with impatience because the RfC has to be allowed to conclude first, meanwhile prolonging our active participation in the campaign. But it's a tricky situation, and can't be helped. Cheers, --JN466 17:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, Thanks for reaching out. You may have seen on the "neologism" talk page that I'm also very supportive of a rename; my main concern in opposing Slim's proposal is her condition that coverage of this topic not exceed "one or two paragraphs". It's a shame those ended up rolled up together.

On the RfAR page, I was concerned by the number of comments, including one from an aribtrator, that appeared to suggest that this content should be deleted altogether as a BLP violation and also the accusation of bad faith, activism, etc., in wanting to keep this content. I'm still amenable, though, to a name change or maaaaaaaybe a merge, though again not under Slim's proposal. With more news stories cropping up on this campaign every day, I just can't buy that we need to limit this topic, now and forever, to only 5-10 sentences, and her proposal to fix this limit strikes me as highly suspicious.unwise.

As for DYK, I do better understand your concerns for Cirt's nominations after reading your page, but at the same time, I'm still reluctant to see potentially good content disappear with the bad. So far the only concern expressed at DYK that I've seen re: these articles is on the frequency of their appearance, rather than the notability or quality of their content. The former problem can be solved just by spacing them out more, I think, and without creating a precedent (only "x" number of articles about topic "Y" allowed over length of time "z") that will potentially discourage future article creation & promotion. If you're concerned about the quality of the articles or hooks themselves, perhaps we might double-check them together for objectionable content, or ask an uninvolved editor to do so.

Anyway, again, thanks for taking the time to respond to my concerns. It's extremely considerate and deeply appreciated. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

ec (Talk page reader) I agree with Jayen that the Googlebombing campaign is notable, that the article is about the Googlebombing, that having the article misnamed "Santorum (neologism)" is equivalent to having Wikipedia throw its huge weight into endorsing the term. But questioning Cirt's GF is offtopic of what should happen to the article. I dislike Santorum's politics, admire Savage, and would like to see the article either 1) renamed or 2) greatly shrunk to remove material describing the campaign rather than the neologism. Sharktopus^talk 18:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like we're all on roughly the same page, and I agree with the frustration that we can't end this well-intentioned but ill-conceived RfC early to get to the growing consensus. This seems like a rare case where Wikipedia does have a deadline.Khazar (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome and your kind words, Khazar. I can understand your POV; it's difficult for me to share it, given the history of some of the previous main page submissions I was concerned about. It's a fact that the Wikipedia main page has become an important bit of Internet real estate, and it's important to retain a good NPOV balance in terms of what we present to the public there, especially when it comes to politics and prominent controversies. I can't look at the NPOV compliance of the Savage articles with you – given the long dispute that has gone on now for several weeks, I would not be the right person.

Macwhiz has suggested on the Santorum talk page that there is probably more underlying consensus about what to do with the article than the RfC might suggest; I think he's right. Still, I recall the fate my first renaming proposal met, and I am still upset at how a key source, which I referred to in good faith in that proposal, and which was difficult or impossible to access for most editors, turned out to have been misrepresented by the article's main author. It was not Wikipedia's finest hour. --JN466 21:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayen, thanks for the reply. I do understand your concerns about DYK, but they seem to me to fall outside existing policy. One thing that's troubled me in the deletion of these hooks is that not a single editor opposing them has cited a relevant Wikipedia policy why they should not run (unless you count Slim's vague suggestions that DYK should be dismantled entirely for disagreeing with her). While we seek balance within articles, and rightly so, it's simply not practical to ask nominating editors to write a matching hook for Phyllis Schlafly to go with every hook for Savage, or on M. Night Shamalyan for every hook on Woody Allen, or on Jenine Garofalo for every hook on Tracy Morgan, or on Yale University for every hook on Harvard University, even though the profit and coverage would be the same in any of these cases. (Though I assure you that if someone did find seven articles to write on any of these, I'd fight for them just as hard. In fact, I've done this regularly.) If we had a shortage of hooks and were unfairly denying others their coverage in Savage's favor, I'd agree it was inappropriate, but a "hook exposure limit" of only, say, two hooks per topic per month seems against long-standing Wikipedia precedent, as well as discouraging future content growth, as editors quite naturally work in bunches. For example, we have an editor who's just completed five straight hooks on Selena albums, which somebody's making money on, of course, but the hooks are still an accurate reflection of what's expanding in Wikipedia. (In any case, it's hard for me to imagine how the 2-5,000 hits of a DYK nom are going to significantly help a massively bestselling author like Savage who appears in hundreds of newspapers and before TV audiences of millions on a regular basis).
I think this is one reason why almost every DYK regular objected to these deletions, and why the opposition has come from non-DYK regulars who are involved in Santorum deletion debates elsewhere. If you think DYK policy should be changed, by all means I'd suggest proposing that policy on its page, though I'd ask you to articulate the limits as narrowly and carefully as possible to minimize the stifling of content growth. But it seems to me that these hooks and articles are legitimate under policy as it exists now; applying the "no articles about politicians within 30 days of an election" you cited before would be an enormous stretch here, as there's no election in 30 days, nor is Dan Savage a politician, nor do the articles mention santorum, save for in a template which I believe has been removed. If this DYK balance is a concern to you, I'd suggest trying to write and expand our Santorum coverage elsewhere, and I'll be happy to back these nominations; I just don't buy into repressing other coverage in the meantime barring a content concern.

All that said, as you can see from the page, I've agreed to stay out of it at this point and am mostly on Wikibreak; I just wanted to give a fair response to your concerns. I'd suggest we leave it to DYK regulars who have less take in the Santorum battle elsewhere than you and I, as they can present the fairest judgement of how this falls under policy. Feel free to flag me down again when we get to make a real attempt at consensus on Santorum (neologism) instead of Slim's false dichotomy between deletion and the article's current form--I'll be glad to back you on the rename. Khazar (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. These are matters of degree, they're not black and white. I agree the 30-day election rule is irrelevant in this case. The Additional Rules contain a pointer to WP:Advertising though, listed in Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Additional_rules#Rules_listed_elsewhere_but_often_overlooked; the DYK rules themselves state in Wikipedia:Dyk#Selection_criteria that "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." The Dan Savage article, which I believe was linked in each of these hooks, of course features a prominent section on the santorum controversy, at Dan_Savage#Political_advocacy, and there is another such section at Savage_Love#Santorum, which was linked in the first hook that ran. In the overall context of the expansion of the neologism article that preceded the creation of these hooks, the creation of 3 templates added to over 200 articles, including those linked in bold in the hooks, and the addition of the neologism article to a fourth template (which actually has a considerable overlap with one of the newly created ones), I would argue that WP:Advertising and the undue focus rule did enter the ballpark of things to consider, looking at the picture as a whole.

I must also say that I feel less strongly about someone writing 5 DYKs on landmark Supreme Court cases, or 19th-century military campaigns, or Shakespeare's sonnets, or a band's albums -- good luck to them. I guess, strictly speaking, per WP:Advertising, we should perhaps combine hooks for multiple records by the same band, but what makes the difference to me in my strength of feeling is that there is no one getting hurt here. It is kind of loveable if someone really likes a band and lovingly writes articles about their output. It is different when there is a string of articles that are all related to efforts to lampoon or criticise someone, because then we may be inadvertently entering the territory where we take a side in "an ongoing dispute", or have an "undue focus on negative aspects". I think we need to be watchful to avoid that. I don't think new policies are needed, actually, just a watchful eye to ensure that we comply with the existing ones.

Thanks for the backing on the rename; I wish we had reached that point already; the whole mess would be instantly defused by a considerable margin. Cheers, --JN466 02:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Gheorghe Briceag

Thanks for your contribution to free knowledge Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

artnet links

Hello Khazar. Thanks for reaching out to me. I wanted to let you know that I responded to the discussion that was posted on the board [1]. Can you give me your feedback? I would really appreciate it. Thanks a lot. Astyaj (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Thepchai Yong

Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Byron Barrera

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Galima Bukharbaeva

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Yelena Masyuk

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Khazar. You have new messages at Anna Frodesiak's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Orphaned non-free image File:DhondupWangchen.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Pictures for Lenin Raghuvanshi's page

Hello Khazar! Do you think a picture would be good for the page? I don't think free pictures are available. I placed a request on Lenin's user page. Do you think there is a way? _morelMW^illiam 16:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Khazar. You have new messages at MorelMWilliam's talk page.
Message added 16:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

_morelMW^illiam 16:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Duke of Caxias

Thanks for the help in the Duke of Caxias' article. I really appreciate. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the Scottish Football league Articles. What a stupid mistake I made. 09:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)

Research survey invitation

Greetings Khazar-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, studying digital media and online community. I am posting to invite you to participate in my research study exploring the work of Wikipedia editors who are members of WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias. The online survey should take 20 to 25 minutes to complete and can be found here:

https://oregon.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cSHzuwaQovaZ6ss

Your responses will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors like you. In addition, at the end of the survey you will have the opportunity to express your interest in a follow-up online interview with the researcher.

This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Research Committee as well as the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon. For a detailed description of the project, please visit its Meta page. This survey is voluntary, and your confidentiality will be protected. You will have the choice of using your Wikipedia User Name during the research or creating a unique pseudonym. You may skip any question you choose, and you may withdraw at any time. By completing the survey, you are providing consent to participate in the research.

If you have any questions about the study, please contact me via my Talk Page (UOJComm) or via email. My faculty advisor is Dr. Ryan Light. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Randall Livingstone School of Journalism & Communication University of Oregon UOJComm (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Rainbow Warrior - Thanks

Hi Khazar. Thanks for the fix. I had done it the way I did because on an eralier occasion changing a lower case to UPPER case resulted in WP identifying it as an unrwitten page. In the specific case it was in the Category strap at the bottom - perhaps different rules apply? Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-free use of File:DhondupWangchen.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:DhondupWangchen.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Quigley (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Khazar, for your kind comments related to a recently created essay that is an attack on me. I'm really appreciative of your expression of your views about it. — Cirt (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. As an editor who works in precisely the pattern which Jayen and Slim seek to ban--writing and expanding articles in clusters, building templates for those clusters, and sending everything appropriate from those clusters to Wikinews, DYK, GAN, etc.--I'm very wary of any guidelines that would seek to label it as prima facie bad faith. They do raise a good point that in the future we should be wary of monitoring that in the rare case of a prominent SEO/Google Bomb issue, and I support their guidelines to that limited degree. For example, I'd probably vote for dialing back of some of templates you created, not because you made these in bad faith, but just because they could be perceived as overkill in this sensitive context; in retrospect, I'm on the fence about those DYK noms for the same reason. But it's silly for them to load the page with thinly-veiled gripes against you if they're not willing to more forthrightly take those to the community. Hopefully other editors will get involved and some sort of middle ground can be found.
Anyway, sorry for all you've been through lately, both Wikipedially and personally. FWIW, I'm very grateful that Wikipedia has all this terrifically expanded, NPOV Dan Savage content, and I think that once the smoke clears, the general community will be more appreciative of that net gain, too. Cheers, -- Khazar (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Khazar, thanks so much for your reply and your kind words about my article creation efforts and my quality improvement editing on Wikipedia. What do you think of my statements regarding my future editing: diff and diff ? — Cirt (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It made me sad to see that you wouldn't be continuing to submit your quality DYK noms. You'll be missed there, I think, and more generally I hate to see the activity level of such a prolific editor go down. But I think you're wise to find a less controversial area of activity for a while to demonstrate your good faith to doubters; there's always so much material that needs expanding that you might as well. Anyway, good luck in future editing. I'm mostly on Wikibreak for the summer, but if you need a copyeditor or second set of eyes for your stuff after my return, feel free to flag me down. Khazar (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I'll try to remember to keep you in mind for future copyediting help. :) — Cirt (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Friendly stalker asks, can you show me where it says we shouldn't create articles in clusters? It seems a very natural thing to do. I have been writing about insects in the news, because it seems to me that Wikipedia should explain stuff people will be curious about. I did 5x expansion of Brood XIX (about the 2011 mass emergence of cicadas), then created a bunch more related cicada articles and even one about a guy who wants to play jazz with a cicada backbeat -- a lot of fun writing and researching from which I submitted 2 DYK hooks, one of which even got into DYKSTATS w 20,000 plus hits (counting hits to all its 3 articles.) Sharktopus ^talk 22:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there's no current guideline on it, but some editors are working to craft a nonbinding guideline recommendation at WP:SEOBOMB. It's a tricky issue, since the line between legitimate linking and expansion and "overpromotion" can be such a blurry one. Luckily, though, no one is likely to accuse you of being in the pay of cicadas. And, on an unrelated note, you got 20,000 hits on those?!? Amazing! Khazar (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The close-up ginormous headshot of big red-eyed bug may have triggered that clickstorm, but I take some credit too for the hook that cicadas are "now re-emerging in 2011 after 13 years underground." Imminent monsters are hooky. Sharktopus ^talk 03:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOMB

I hadn't really followed editing at the essay for the past three or four days, but FWIW, I think your changes were fine. [2]. --JN466 10:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. It looks like you are indeed about to open an RfC/U per the link Will Beback put on the MfD page; feel free to flag me down when it's "live". Much of what you've listed is troubling, and I'll probably endorse at least some form of it pending Cirt's response. Khazar (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK of Baku Museum of Modern Art in Azerbaijan

Hi, I was wondering if you'd be interested in weighing in at the DYK nomination for the Baku Museum of Modern Art. OCNative (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey OC, though I think you and Shark are very much in the right on this, I'm sorry to say I've got enough of a history with Tony at this point that my intervention couldn't be seen as neutral. If I comment now, he'd be within his rights to call canvassing. Unfortunately, it looks like the usual Tony issues: the borderline civility ("xenophobic"?) and attempt to institute new policies in the hook reviews rather than DYK talk (in this case, the insistence on checking all other articles in a hook for his personal standards of main page readiness). I've tried talking to him about this without success, but with luck another editor will reach out more successfully soon. -- Khazar (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. Fortunately, Yngvadottir was able to resolve it. The weird thing is I didn't even link to the article he was referring to, a reviewer added the link! You saw that he lobbed these accusations, and then, he lobbed these accusations with a suggestion I be admonished, but up to that point, the only thing I had ever said about that nom was "All problems fixed. Thanks for the review!" in response to Rcej's review. I asked him for an explanation here, and he promptly ignored it here. What was frustrating is this wasn't a self-nom. Lately, I've been focusing my DYK efforts on nominating other people's articles as an effort to try to encourage new editors (or at least new-to-DYK). This has definitely been the weirdest situations I've ever seen over one of my DYK noms. OCNative (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sony Esteus

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

to to

"to to" is not always wrong. [3] The original text was grammatical and correct: "She is constantly bemoaning her job and the lengths she goes to to please Anders". If you're going to use an automated tool, please review what it does. Barsoomian (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies; I was correcting for oponent -> opponent and didn't notice the tool had snagged that non-error as well. (Though it does seem that that sentence could be easily reworded for better grammar and clarity--I'll fix that now.) I do my best to manually double-check every correction, but I imagine one does slip past me every 1,000 edits or so. In any case, thanks for calling my attention to it. Cheers, -- Khazar (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK subpages

I'm sending this message to editors who commented at WT:DYK#Page restructuring and expressed an interest in setting up a subpage-based system for DYK nominations. If you have time, please see WT:DYK#New nomination setup and comment there. Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

50 DYK Medal

		The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Nice work! Your articles on human rights issues and biographies cover all-too-often ignored topics and are a great asset to Wikipedia. Thank you! OCNative (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks OC, for the medal and kind words! Cheers, -- Khazar (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings!

I appreciate the work you are doing for WP and for human rights issues. --Greenmaven (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a pleasure. -- Khazar (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new Power-Up Mushroom of editorial experience

Congrats on having just become a Most Perfect Tutnum! I am especially admiring because I am now looking with lust in my heart toward my own next level up. to Grognard. Just 10 more edits for me and I'll be there. (Actually, after I post this, just nine more edits.) Anyway, thanks for all those thousands of edits you've spent making things better for lots of people who really, really, really deserved a break. Sharktopus ^talk 23:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and premature congrats to you as well! -- Khazar (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)