User talk:Pyrotec/Archive09Q4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Pyrotec. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Greetings. I added a few comments to the discussion that you contributed to [1]. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing the GA review for Suwałki Agreement. When I started the review, the article was fairly stable, no signs of edit warring, just the normal editing, etc. Since I've posted the review, an edit war has sprung up. I'd like your advice on when it hits the point where it fails the stable criteria of GA. I've posted a note on the review page pointing out that the edit war isn't helping it's nomination, but it's being ignored, near as I can tell. I'm not really in the mood to get attacked for quick failing the article, but this is getting kinda silly.... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your GA review and pass, this time of the Boulogne agreement. I've responded to the apparent incongruity about the dating.

If you want to have a look at my Mise of Amiens article also, you'll find that it has a lot of similarities to the Mise of Lewes, which you have already reviewed. Lampman (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you have asked nicely pehaps we could try for a hat-trick. Pyrotec (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, much appreciated! Lampman (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"But, realistically, I'm not going win an arguement with you on grammar - so I'm going to pass it anyway". You might well win, but not without a fight. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you interested in reviewing 1980 Azores Islands earthquake? It's a short article and no one has signed up for it-it's been sitting for a while. Don't feel obligated, though. ceranthor 14:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have some "long" articles under review, but I will fit it in next week. Doing a "short" one provides a bit of a break. Pyrotec (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your (clearly time-consuming) review of Jesus College, Oxford. It's much appreciated. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 20:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Pyrotec (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pyrotec. Thanks for the message. I homed in on your aerial photograph. It does indeed centre on the North Site, part of which makes up the Waltham Abbey SSSI. I intend to visit that area when the Gunpowder Mills re-open. (Northmetpit (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)).

Thank you Pyrotec for your communication- very interesting. I will be renting the Enigma film at the earliest opportunity. Just to let you know I was brought up close to Waltham Abbey and spent much of my childhood there. (Northmetpit (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)).

Thanks for your review of Peckforton Castle. It's good to get some independent appreciation. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. A nicely written article and very easy to review. Pyrotec (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I put Buildings and architecture of Bath up for GA and a reviewer has started the review, making several comments (at Talk:Buildings and architecture of Bath/GA1) about the structure of the article and areas for development. If any of you had any time to take a look and make any edits or comments you feel are appropriate that would be great.— Rod ^talk 20:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you strike issues as you feelthey are resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If you get a chance, check in and let me know how you feel I have responded to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've not done much work on wikipedia since last Thursday. As of now, the review is mostly completed (I'm leaving the WP:Lead a bit longer). The article has inproved considerably, but I still have concerns over the History and the new Structure sections. Pyrotec (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

How is the new structure section now. I need to know before Tuesday whether I need to actually hunt down sources in the Library or whether the online stuff is sufficient.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with structure, your recent edits have considerable improved that section. The main outstanding problem area is "History": I consider that the discussion of 'selection of the architect' needs some more work. Pyrotec (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I have responded to all of your final concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's now a GA. Pyrotec (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings! Thanks for helping review the British Airways article. I understand that the review was placed on hold, particularly while it underwent changes regarding photo placement. Since then, the photo issue has apparently been resolved (following changes by a number of editors) and the article has largely stabilised. If you have the time, the editors of the article await your suggestions and comments. Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'll make it top of my list for tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to second the praise for you stepping into help out this article, it appears fate brings us to cross paths several times, or more likely we share the same interests! Thank you for your efforts on British Airways. Kyteto (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work passing this article at GAN! Bradley0110 (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, much appreciated. It was a nice article and very easy to review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review (in terms of it only being listed the other day!) I wondered if you thought that anything might be lacking, as I reckon Fred should be on the front page at some point? Parrot of Doom 19:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I did Malleus' ferret fondling article quicker, but there was some discussion over a question mark, as in "Sports(?) article". This is just a personal preference: I liked the series on buildings where Fred did lots of sketches on how they were built and he built a brick arch next to his workshop to demonstrate the arch-building technique and it partially collapsed whilst he was sitting astride it. There is not much about that series in the article - perhaps its lack of sources. It would also be nice to have a picture of the "blue plac" - Dr Fred Dibnah MBE Steeplejack", its a bit small here:

. Pyrotec (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly add more detail about the TV work he did - the Hall book is written by the producer/director of his last few series. I was a bit concerned about focus and deliberately kept it short. Parrot of Doom 12:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also got Hall - it was a Christmas present. A nice book, but no index. WH Smith also did a couple of books in 2005 & 6 by Keith Langston - one of which I used as a citation. Pyrotec (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello & thanks for your time reviewing the article. I've made a number of minor corrections in the references. About the Guinness Book Record it seems that a somewhat unreliable source created incosistency: mentioned that it was second deepest Gorge while the Guinness book has a diferrent view. I will explain my edit [[2]] in the review page.Alexikoua (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alexikoua, Thanks for your note. The Initial review is almost finished, but I've not yet saved it. Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination. Although my first geography article, I feel that this field is really interesting, especially when it deals with unique ecosystems and protected areas.Alexikoua (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the GA review. I've repaired the dead links, so it should be good to go now. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pass. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Pyrotec. Thank you for pointing out your copyright concerns with File:Branch Lines Around Chard and Yeovil Book.jpg. I'm dropping you a line just to let you know that the tag that you placed on the image, {{copyvio}}, is specifically used for text that violates copyright. For images that are clear copyright violations, you can follow the procedure for speedy deletion. For images that are suspected to be copyright violations, we have a review board for possibly unfree images. Other image copyright concerns are handled in various ways (see Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion for specifics.) I have corrected the tag on this image so that it can be handled in the proper venue, but I wanted to let you know for future use in case you should encounter another image that raises concerns. Thanks again for pointing out the potential problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I will, as you suggested, note this for future reference. Pyrotec (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response to my requests for reviews! FYI, I am the course leader, do let me know if you have any questions about the course or the assignment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, in regards to "overlinking" are you referring to excessive footnotes? I am unsure of what you are referring to. Thanks, Rgg6 (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am extremely busy these days with many course works which have to be done... :(:( I will try to make those transliterations tomorrow... If you have other remarks, please write them down. Best, --Gligan (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much. I wish you to continue with your good work and all the best. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My name is Shaquel Smith and I am editing the "Food Power" article. What does orphan mean? can you wtire on my talk page instructions to make the article a GA....my wikiname is ShaqSmith

ShaqSmith (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look at the sections you mention. It happened in the summer, with more groups now, I'd be surprised if it didn't happen at least once. PS. Please note that the final deadline for this project is Dec 8. That means that some students may not be motivated (despite whatever I do) to do work till near the deadline. Also, we don't need to rush to pass (or fail) the article this week, if something can be further improve, they have time to do that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You are the reviewer :) Btw, what do you think about the First_World#Globalization section - I noted earlier on talk that the first three sections are primarily about globalization, and have very little do to with the First World. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Btw, you don't have to fix those issues yourself :) I fully expect that the students working on that article should be able to fix them, once you alert them to those issues on talk. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And we have our first serious problem: as seen here.I do it as much checking for that stuff as I can but more eyes are always helpful in finding potential copyvio/plagiarism problems - and this is one of the reasons writing on Wikipedia is a win-win. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. Proof that copyvio/plagiarism is not an isolated problems. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I, Piotrus, award you The WikiPen, the award of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination. Thank you for helping out with the classroom assignment! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Rgg6 (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I second that! I realized after I had continued to make corrections that we had achieved GA status. Thanks again! Jsf26 (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the uproar at Food power. :/ Hopefully the copyvio situation will resolve soon. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Keep an eye on it if you like, it should by my next FAC. I only went for GA this time as I didn't have one of the sources I wanted, but its just arrived in the library so I can start adding it to the article. Parrot of Doom 19:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the review work on Free State of Galveston so far. I appreciate all the tweaks!

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the GA award!

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up the GA review on this one. Just to let you know the nominator is away until 5th December so there is no hurry for the review completion. If there is not too much I may be able to handle it and have a surprise waiting for them when they return. Keith D (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Pyrotec (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User is back now so you can hit us with the review comments if you have the time. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Pyrotec, please review the article when you can and let me know if there are additional items that need to be addressed. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Update. I've now closed the review and the Article history has been updated to show a WP:GAR with a "Keep" result. Thanks for the hard work in bring the article back up to GA status.Pyrotec (talk)

Thank you! Postoak (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you know that students are doing the final push to improve them this week; if you could give them revised comments (Talk:Food power/GA1), it would be much appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes; in fact I will be traveling over the weekend, so I will probably recognize any GA awarded till Monday-ish (I am not that strict on deadlines). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi I'm from the Proto-globalization article and I had a question on one of you comments. What do you mean by the introduction section? Just so i know where to focus. Thanks for your time. (Bbsaa (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

I just edited the lead....comments please ShaqSmith (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Did we recieve GA Status? ShaqSmith (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. See the article's talkpage. Pyrotec (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I was quite surprised and a little dumbfounded. You are an excellent reviewer! Hope you liked it. Buchraeumer (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)