User talk:Pyrotec/Archive10Q4

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.

Hi, thanks for the message. I have added the book you mentioned as Further Reading, although you may want to add details to the reference I gave, or indeed if there's any specific refs from the book that could be added to the article text that would be good. I will try and add a bit more from the Clydesbridge History source. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

		Thank you!
		Thank you for awarding Joseph's Tomb GA status. Much appreciated! Chesdovi (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Listen, User:JackRance22 posted some personal remarks on the GA Review of Antonio Paoli at the Talk:Antonio Paoli/GA1 which I believe is wrong because the GA Review was completed on September 6, 2010 and the GA Review page is not the proper forum for a persons personal opinion. This same person, I believe, has previously edited under the user names of User:92.29.117.75, User:84.13.201.145 and User:59.101.21.169 [1]. I removed the statement once on the grounds that there are other forums to express ourselves, however it was posted once again. I may be wrong on this issue and that is why I am requesting your thoughts and that you look into this. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I deleted the comments from Talk:Antonio Paoli/GA1. Pyrotec (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I really do not mind the delays, as a matter of fact I have to thank you for all the extra work that you did on the article. I will expand the intro. It is the citation organization where I will have problems. To be honest with you I think that I'm fairly good when it comes to writing, but when when it comes to doing a simple task with the citations I tend to mess things up. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Done- I hope. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm looking at it this very comment. Pyrotec (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Oops, you're right, the citation at the start of the is odd. The reason it was there was that I was using it as a model-reference and I forgot to remove it, however it is now removed. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Cheers. Pyrotec (talk)

Please be advised that the contest is open only to articles whose reviews began after 1 October.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for reviewing the article Cubzac-les-Ponts. I am currently not in France and I do not have much of the paper sources with me. I would be grateful if the review process was an opportunity to significantly improve the article. I hope you enjoy the read, and I am available for copy-editing over the coming week. Cheers, 86.9.198.24 (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for your note. I'm going to start the review today but I may not finish it today: I will be in the south of France. So if I don't finish it today there will be a gap of eight days before I do anymore work on the review. Pyrotec (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, great. Please don't finish your review today. :) Cheers, 86.9.198.24 (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

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

I'm trying to get the LRC (train) article ready for an FA run. Would you mind reffing up the section on tilting concepts and ATP? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I shalln't be doing much tomorrow on that article and I'm already doing two WP:GAN reviews, but I hope to make a start before the weekend. Pyrotec (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Any suggestions for edits also gratefully accepted. The writing looks good to me, but that doesn't mean much. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pyrotec. There are a number of UK Waterways articles which have been significantly expanded since they were last assessed, and I would like to assess them. Looking at the guidelines, an article is worthy of a "B" rating if it 1) is suitably referenced 2) has reasonable coverage 3) has a defined structure 4) is reasonably well written 5) uses supporting materials 6) is appropriately understandable. I think I can judge most of these fairly well, but have you any thoughts on what constitutes "reasonable coverage"? So I have just been working on Aire and Calder Navigation, for instance. All the refs are inline, and it uses a bibliography, to save some of the clutter. 1-ok. It has a largely chronological flow, with several subsections to make the overall structure easier to appreciate. 3-ok. The grammer and spelling, and the general flow seem good to me. 4-ok. It uses an infobox, a map and includes images. 5-ok. It does not use abbreviations or unexplained technical terms. 6-ok. Does it cover the subject reasonably? I think so, but am I biased? Any thoughts would be gratefully appreciated. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob, I'm sorry for the delay in responding, I took eight days holiday (with no internet nor PC) and I'm slowly settling back into wikipedia. A nice article: good work. Its B class, so I've "upped" the assessment. Possibly it could get through WP:GAN, but I've not assessed it against that criteria. Pyrotec (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No delay. I knew you were away (from previous section), and so was I (stayed at Chew Valley, walked River Parrett and Bridgwater and Taunton canal). How did you decide if it had "reasonable coverage", though? There do not seem to be many people assessing Waterways articles at the moment, and I do not want to lumber you with lots. If I could be sure what counts as reasonable coverage, I could do it myself. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the canal so I can't be certain that an important idiosyncrasy has been neglected or over emphasised; however, the article is generally well referenced, illustrated, it has a route map, infobox, history, route description and discussion of current usage. That makes it either C-class or B-class: C-class is a relatively new class, so some older articles that were assessed B-class may only be C-class. It this case, hypothetically, I might pass it at GA, so that tends to suggest that its B class. I can also look at other B and C class canal/river (or railways, etc) articles to make a decision. To a large extend it is a matter of confidence, I assessed several thousand canal, railway and UKgeo articles (plus 320 WP:GAN reviews) so I "think" I know what I'm doing. Anyone can disagree and I might argue with them: but I might be wrong some of the time. P.S. I hope you enjoyed the River Parrett and Bridgwater and Taunton canal: the former is just a mile or so from this terminal I'm using. Pyrotec (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. We walked Thorney Mill to Langport and Huntworth to Docks. Spotted a couple of features that ought to be on route maps. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In view of your comments, I have decided to go for WP:GAN. There are a couple of sections near the bottom which need some improvement first, and then I will submit it for assessment. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Pyrotec, please keep your comments to discussion of the process, and not specific negative comments addressed against individual users, as you have failed to do at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, I hope that i have addressed your concerns. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with the repeated use of attacking and negatively commenting about individual contributors at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations as a way to make your point. If you cannot make your point constructively in discussion without focusing negatively on other Wikipedia users, then consider backing away from the discussion. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There are any number of myriads of numerous ways in which you can choose to bring across your arguments. You do not have to decide to make your point by focusing your specific comments on one individual user. Please, take care not to do this again in the future. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You could have gone about this differently. You could have made your point without the need to single out any individual editor in your comments. It was not necessary. It was not appropriate. It was not conducive to positive polite dialog or fostering a meaningful conversation. It has had the impact of derailing the conversation away from the initial subject matter. It has had the impact of negating your argumentation with the ridiculous nature of the way you have pursued your agenda and attempts to focus negative commentary against one individual editor in the process. If you cannot see that, then I am mystified as to your participation in a collaborative editing environment. -- Cirt (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, you chose to single out an individual user in your comments, repeatedly. I did not. You could have chosen another way to frame your argumentation other than choosing to do so with the method of attacking another user at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations as a way to make your point. The fact that you chose to do so, reflects quite poorly on you and your assumptions of bad faith. -- Cirt (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, perhaps we should both stop doing so. Agree? -- Cirt (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Pyrotec, for your review and your encouraging remarks. They are very much appreciated. Tim riley (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be able to confirm (with a reference if possible) the closure of ROF Bridgwater in 2008? Both ROF Bridgwater and Somerset have this as "due to close in July 2008".— Rod ^talk 17:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rod, I remember seing an article, with pictures, in the Bridgwater Mercury. I beleive that there is a web-based version, but I'd need to check to see whether they have archived versions. I'll do some checking with google; probably tommorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"ε 86 in von Soden numbering" - it is even unreferenced. Sorry. Actually I am 210 km out from Warsaw (Białowieża Forest) and I do not have work of Hermann von Soden. I will return in Tuesday (or in Wednesday). Perhaps the article needs additional paragraph about in which way it was desinated (Wettstein gave siglum F, Gregory gave 09, von Soden gave ε 86) Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the GA review Pyrotec. Malleus Fatuorum 14:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As you may have heard Jimmy Wales is coming to give a talk at the Victoria Rooms in Bristol on 13th January 2011 as part of wikipedia's 10th birthday celebrations. There is a possibility of a small group of local active wikipedians to meet him for 20 mins before the talk. If you are interested could you respond on the centralised discussion on the Bristol wikiproject talk page?— Rod ^talk 20:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for agreeing to review Route Trident for me. I just wanted to let you know that due to work commitments I probably won't be able to log in (and respond to the review) until 11 December. If you want to hold off reviewing until then or do it when you like and let me catch up when I get back then that'd be great. Thanks once again for agreeing to review the article - Dumelow (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pyrotec, thanks for taking the time to review the article. I will take care of the changes. Please remember that, basically, you are reviewing a US Government report made by experts :) As you can see, I have other sources added to it and made earlier corrections myself on the talk page. Best, SSZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.144.38 (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your comments on the GA review page and here is what I have to say: I think the text originally provided by the WP editor Calliopejen1 which came from the Library of Congress should not be quoted but properly referenced and attributed as it is now the case with This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.. The reason is simple: this will allow other editors to add more information and knowledge between the lines already provided, as more information/updates/details becomes available. My 2 cents. 68.197.144.38 (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You have already so many Barnstars that I have decided to give you an accolade one for your very REAL efforts in reviewing Wikipedia articles through the GA review process! REAL thanks :) SSZ (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review of Montmartre funicular — I've been on quite a Wikibreak, somewhat unexpectedly, so I am sorry to have submitted this to review and not been able to address your concerns. I will try to do that some time (chiefly adding citations) and then perhaps resubmit it for GA?

My aim before the break was to have the article have No Red Links, so I added some supporting articles (the links were basically the same as those for the French article with, of course, reasonable additions and deletions for the English-speaking world) — those themselves are not much more than stubs, but better than nothing. Si Trew (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review of this article... I recently did my first GA review (on Wales) and realise it's a tough job, but that it's about the quickest way to whip an article into shape. Thanks again! Catfish Jim & the soapdish 00:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pyrotec. Thanks for the thorough review on Poulton-le-Fylde, it's much appreciated. I think I've addressed your concern in the review. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 14:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finishing (& passing!) the review. I was pleased to see that you were going to be the reviewer as you're always very thorough. Cheers! --BelovedFreak 11:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will fix as noted. Kanatonian (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed as many as I could except one, (reason provided). Please take a look. I will be off wiki for the next few days. Kanatonian (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort and sentiments regarding FA, but I believe that an FA quality article’s best reward is a temporary blip in popularity, but a well written GA quality article can be as good or even better than an FA quality article if it has a good c/editors as I have managed to find and a good GA reviewer as you have done. Kataragama temple is as good as it is going to get for the 50 odd people who read it on a daily basis. FA process also has some people who are driven by their POV are an impediment to the project. Given that anything we write about South Asia and Sri Lanka in specific can be construed as controversial, as you have seen even in this article, it brings out the worst in those people who instead of helping the project alone want to slow it down. So I use the precious little time I have for Wikipedia to write well sourced GA quality articles that are supported by good copy editors. I rely on a few of the regularly. Kanatonian (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review Sibyl de Neufmarché for GA, Pyrotec - your work is very much appreciated. Daicaregos (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You added several comments to the LRC article claiming that it was based on the HST. I have seen many of the original documents for this project, and I have not seen a single reference to this. Do you have a reference for this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies Pyro, I clearly didn't read the History diffs well enough! I'm going to follow through on the IP. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pyrotec! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)