User talk:Pyrotec/Archive10Q3

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.

I was surprised and hurt by your reaction to my suggestion for a new category on the GANTalk page, since I have had positive interaction with you in the past, including your delightfully quick review on my nomination for GA of David Carradine You seemed to think that I was just complaining that my article had not been reviewed. The case actually is that, what I was really suggesting, in an admittedly round-about way , was that there be a separate category for biographies. That would not have helped the status of the article I had at the time nominated, since it was about a film (see my response to you on the discussion page for further explanation of my point). I really, actually happen to think that biographies should take precedence over the other more trivial matters. Anyway, my point here is that you accused me of ulterior motives and I have taken offense to that.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Good Article Review on Westminster tube station. I have added note 20, which indicates the access arrangement within the station. --DavidCane (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks Pyrotec for all your help in bringing this article to GA status. Granitethighs 22:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm now back from Glasto & looking to do what is needed on Sweet Track, but could you clarify what you think is outstanding?— Rod ^talk 19:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Woops, sorry for the delay. I will restart the review. I hope you enjoyed Glastonbury without the mud and rain. Pyrotec (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again.— Rod ^talk 20:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks Pyrotec for allyour assistance in getting this article up to GA status.Granitethighs 22:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Pyrotec! Hope everything its ok. Since you ga passed this one (its almost a year now) I inform you that it's on peer review in order to be further upgraded.Alexikoua (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Little Thetford—Proposal to replace existing 2006 image of roundhouse with 1906 image. Please join the debate --Senra (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, re this undo; true, the 1954 original will not have had an ISBN, but if reprinted after about 1966 may have had at least a SBN if not an ISBN (a SBN is easily converted to an ISBN, simply by prepending it with a zero). If such reprint was basically unchanged from the original, the addition of an ISBN to the citation is valid. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, Yes I know about SBNs. However, in this case I am using (I added the cites) the original 1954 version. It is not a reprint and it does not have a SBN, so it certainly does not have an ISBN. If I were to have have used a reprint, I know that some exist, I would have updated the date (i.e. used both dates). Pyrotec (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review and the pass. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello I noticed you replied to my question about patents on the Matches talk page with page 363 of threfall Could you please expand upon this? I do not know what book you are referring to. Richard Threlfall did publish 'On laboratory arts' in 1898, is this the book you are referring to? thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 14:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Boundarylayer, Thanks for your question. I've replied on Talk:Match. Pyrotec (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As you were very helpful to me early in my editing, I thought I would beg one moment of your time to help me consider whether it is worth adding flora and fauna, perhaps in an historical context, to an already FA article (excuse the pleonasm); I notice UKTOWNS omits both headings from its guidelines. Little Thetford has one surviving disease free Elm tree (natural hybrid Ulmus minor + Ulmus glabra); many species of fish were once prevalent including Roach, Bream, Rudd, Perch, Bleak, Tench and Carp; the village is almost plagued with Red fox, Muntjac deer, geese, Muscovy Ducks, and swans. I may soon have enough for at least one decent paragraph on each of the two topics (bit light on flora at the moment). Are there any example wikipedia GA or FA class articles which can help me decide? I am also unsure of the rules governing adding to already FA articles --Senra (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Senra. Congratulations again on your FA. I've not got very much personal experience of FAs: I was a co-nominator of one article at WP:FAC, which passed the second time around; and I've reviewed lots of articles (including yours) at WP:GA which have latter become FAs. So I can spot a potential FAC and I've help fix problems at FAC, but that's about all. Since your article is at FA, all additions should be at the same level, so that means attention to requirements such as referencing, citations, good grammar, readability, etc. There should be no problems over minor additions to existing FA-class articles, provided that the additions are at the required standard. In terms of existing GA articles, I've done a only few article reviews at WP:GAN that include flora and fauna sections/subsections. They were Ein Avdat, Isle of Arran, River Trym, Dal Lake, (Puyehue-Cordón Caulle - On Hold); but, as I've now done over 300 GAN reviews, that's not very many. Sorry, I can't answer the question about FAs with flora and fauna. Pyrotec (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response; five in 300 is too low a ratio. I will not be adding flora nor fauna to the article --Senra (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Pyrotec, but my take on it would be roughly the same as on the similar question about notable inhabitants. If the flora/fauna are particularly significant to the village (it's the only place where a particular plant grows, attracts a lot of birdwatchers, fishing is particularly important to the local economy etc) they probably ought to be mentioned; if they're the same flora and fauna as the rest of northern Cambridgeshire and east Norfolk, then probably not. Regarding additions and changes, there's nothing to stop you adding (or removing) from a Featured Article, but bear in mind that the more an article differs from the version which was promoted, the more likely it is to be proposed for WP:GAR or WP:FAR. As long as the article's still in a good state then review is nothing to be afraid of, but it can be quite time-consuming while it's going on. – iridescent 22:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Iridescent, Thanks for the contribution. Pyrotec (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Commissioned for Free South, Paisley - sometime at the turn of 1900s. Was widely distributed and used by the church in the 1930s/40s Original in possession and ownership of Minister of the Laigh Kirk (ie Me).

Djt1812 (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the up date. Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed the extraneous information about Paisley Abbey.

The article on the Laigh is NOT an article about the Abbey, or for that matter the former High and Mid Kirks.

If people want to read about those they could easily follow the links to those articles.

Djt1812 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your time, effort and assessment. I may have said this before, if you find yourself in this part of the world, do visit the museum. unfortunately still closed, but contact me and I'll open the door.

I appreciate your FA suggestion, however I think that I'll bring another to GA first

The email; I can't see how to contact you; I'll just say that the sender was motivated by the center picture of the five in the final gallery - ClemMcGann (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the effort you are putting in on RDX. Glrx (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No problems. I spent some time on it four years ago, but other articles got in the way. Your recent efforts have rekindled my interest. Pyrotec (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to add some German perspective to the article. My German is terrible; I don't have the Gartz book; and the German wikipedia is poor on refs. It seemed that the 4 processes developed in the 1930s matched the different "salts". Go ahead and edit the page for a better reference; I'm worried that mine really are circular WP citations. Thanks. Glrx (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review Ebbw Valley Railway for GA, Pyrotec - your work is very much appreciated. Daicaregos (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not nominating Hispanics in the United States Coast Guard for "GA", but I would like for you to look it over and give me your opinion as to if you believe that it has or has not the potential to be a "GA". Tony the Marine (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your quick response and advice. I took care (I hope)of your recommendations. I asked you to look it over because I believe that you are fair and the fact that I have "GA"s with Hispanics in the United States Marine Corps and Hispanics in the United States Navy kind of made me think about this one. What the heck, I just went ahead and nominated it, anyway. Let me see what happens now. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • By the way, even though I wasn't involved with the "GA" nomination of the Antonio Paoli article, I think that I have taken care of the issues involved. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the update, I'll re-look at it. Pyrotec (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. A friend of mine has recently has had a lot of trouble with the reviewers of these two articles, the first of which has been abandoned twice by the reviewers and not completed for whatever reason. The second one expired while he was away on hliday I think. As a result he has grown discouraged and has abandoned the nominations as he felt he was wasting his time. As I recall you were a highly capable reviewer who ensures that article reviews are completed, I was wondering if you could reopen these nominations and review them and ensure that they are completed. I'll be willing to help the chief writer of them address any issues as I eblieve these could be GAs and valuable ones for Greenland with a bit of work. As I know that you are capable of constructive criticism and ensuring articles reach a good standard can you take these under your belt? Dr. Blofeld 19:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well he's the opposite of keen on the idea so i'll have to pass I think.. Thanks anyway, to me the articles look GA worthy though... Dr. Blofeld 16:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's what I had thought. OK I've nominated them in my own right and will try to ensure they are good enough, providing WP:OWN isn't violated and I am able to make the improvements I think are necessary to pass it... Its my responsibility now then Dr. Blofeld 20:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Hello! I was wondering if you would be interested in reviewing Pedro II of Brazil and approve or not its nomination for good article (See: Talk:Pedro II of Brazil/GA1). Since you reviewed other articles about him, I thought you could the best person to do it. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry! But thank you very much, anyway. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Could you review The Twilight Saga: New Moon for GA status? ChaosMaster_Chat 21:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• I could review it. At the moment I have two reviews in progress (one is now On Hold); and I've already chosen (but not yet signed up do it) my next review, which has been on WP:GAN longer than your nomination. So I will not be starting your nomination much before early next week. I will not sign up to do now, but if its still awaiting a reviewer next week I will review it or you. Pyrotec (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks in advanced. :) ChaosMaster_Chat 02:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you perhaps review "my" article, Vestby Station, for GA as well? Thanks. --Eisfbnore (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I've signed up but it will be the third of three reviews: your Bergen Tramway will be second. Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I've also improved the preceding station, Ås, and would be very happy if you could take a look at it. Eisfbnore (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to delay the "On-Hold" period for Bergen Tramway for a few days? Thanks. --Eisfbnore (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Pyrotec (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Many thanks for your review. —Jeremy (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, The reason I almost quit had to do with the David Carradine article, as a matter of fact. I nominated it for FA (it failed). I felt the comments that were made were done so in a rather degrading way. I can handle, "you can't use those images because...", but "What made you think you could use those images?" kinda rubs me the wrong way. Anyway, here is the the trivia: Rahway Valley 15 was used in the film The Cardinal, which was based on a book written by Henry Morton Robinson, who wrote The Perfect Round. Americana is a film based on The Perfect Round, starring, produced, edited and directed by David Carradine. I also wrote the Americana article (from scratch) and it is also FA. So it all comes full circle.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I appreciate the time and effort it takes to do a review. I tried it a couple of times and didn't like doing it much, so I really appreciate those of you who do it.--Ishtar456 (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)