User talk:Pyrotec/Archive13Q3
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Talkback
Message added 11:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hendrix GAN
FWIW, I think User:Zeddman123 is a sock/troll. I have no interest in a Hendrix GAN. I intend to take the article straight to FAC sometime in the next few months. I told Zeddman that just minutes before they opened the now failed GAN. The history of edit-warring and talk pages disputes are almost all tied to this same sock/troll that started bothering me there several months ago. Look in the talk page archives. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, did you have time to review my reply there? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
DYK RfC
- As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions03:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 08:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks. I had similar concerns given that the GA review was passed in three minutes and there were a couple things I was expecting a GA reviewer might bring up that we can work out. I use GA reviews to make sure that the article was done properly despite my COI, but it doesn't serve that purpose if the article doesn't actually meet the GA criteria. CorporateM (Talk) 13:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hopefully I'm not bugging you too much, but if you have time/interest at some point, it would be great to get a second pair of eyes on Code 42 Software as well. The GA review was conducted in ten minutes and the usual grid for checking against the criteria wasn't used. On the other hand, perhaps it is GA-quality. Editors have told me I tend to be overly harsh on myself. CorporateM (Talk) 13:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Jefferson Davis
Was not sure if you caught this, but the Jefferson Davis lede is ready to be examined again. Omnedon (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for undertaking the GA review Pyrotec. Eric Corbett 15:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
GA nomination of Gospel of the Hebrews
Hi Pyrotec. Could you please include me in your review process? Just leave me a message on my personal Talk page when you have comments ready, with a link to wherever I need to go to find them. Tks. PiCo (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
review request
User:Diannaa and I recently completed a revision of Auschwitz concentration camp and nominated it today for GA. I don't normally try to solicit GA reviewers, but given the sensitivity of the topic, I figured I'd try to get an experienced reviewer for this one, and thought of you first. Would you have any interest in taking this one on? I'd be happy to labor-swap and review any 2-3 other nominations of your choice out of the queue. Either way, thanks for all your reviewing. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Khazar2, Thanks for your note, and sorry for the delay, I needed a break. I can certainly review it, but even were I were to sign up to do it today it probably won't get started until early in September: I have two "unstarted" reviews open already. So if you don't mind the wait, I'll sign up for it. Interestingly, the nomination above has got "controversal", which supprised me, and I've not yet started to read the article. I don't have any nominations myself and I'm somwhat reluctant to suggest nominations, since it reflects personal bias (mine). However, if you want to do one or two, about about User:RoslynSKP (Warfare) or User:Piotrus (World history), both nominator's seem to have long waits, but both nominators produce "good articles" that make GA (not always the first time round). Pyrotec (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'll certainly try to provide at least a brief review for WP:POLAND, through I am not sure if I'll feel up to doing a full GA review with all bells and dingles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)That wait would be fine. I'd rather have a quality review from you a month or two from now than a sloppy one from someone else today--it's a topic that can (understandably) make people overemotional. And I'd be glad to take some of the other reviews you suggest. Thanks, I really appreciate this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't watch your talk page, but you linked my name, and that's enough for WP:ECHO :) Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
GAN review?
Hi Pyrotec. You did a great job reviewing Gospel of the Ebionites. Do you have time to tackle Gospel of the Hebrews?
- I can do it, but it might be one or two weeks before I get round to it. I have three on the go at the moment Pyrotec (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's ok, take your time. I would rather wait a few weeks and have a reviewer that I know will do a thorough job. You can see based on the GEbi article how much this evaluation matters as articles are further improved toward FA. Ignocrates (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting to this so quickly. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's ok, take your time. I would rather wait a few weeks and have a reviewer that I know will do a thorough job. You can see based on the GEbi article how much this evaluation matters as articles are further improved toward FA. Ignocrates (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I can't tell if you stopped the review because of the arbitration case or if you are just busy with other matters. We should keep going and try to finish before arbitration closes if you have time to complete the review. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Ignocrates. I've not taken part in, or taken any notice of, arbitration; so it has had no impact on what I do or don't do. The state of the article (used in your edit summary) is unchanged, it's still "on review" (I've not changed the template to "on Hold", or pass / fail). I had other things to attend to on wikipedia on 7th (Sept) and I ran out of time on 8th, so I did not work on the review and I took yesterday off. Sorry for the hold up. I hope to finish it tomorrow - I don't have time to night to do it all. Pyrotec (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for letting me know. Ignocrates (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I have made the changes you requested in review. Ignocrates (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I know you are being slammed with reviews these days. Ignocrates (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's OK. Thanks for asking. I enjoyed reviewing the nomination and the footnotes / citations; and reading some of the book extracts on google books, etc. There are are couple of books that really seemed interesting: Jewish Believers in Jesus in particular. I'm sorry that it took so long to complete the review and I hope that the problems with John Carter are sorted out "painlessly", if such as thing is possible. Pyrotec (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 18:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
GA reviews on behalf of WikiProject Eurovision
Hi Pyrotec,
Following your advice a year ago in which you politely informed me to contact you if I ever submitted future GA's. A few months ago I submitted Eurovision Song Contest 2011 and Eurovision Song Contest 2013 for GAR. I was wondering if it would be possible to have a loot at those whenever you get a spare moment. Also I've been reading up on A-class, and noticed there doesn't appear to be an official nominations board to submit these to. Since the GA you did on Eurovision Song Contest 2012, the article itself has been improved even more, and is starting to fulfil the A-class criteria (falling short of FA). Am I right to assume that A-class are given if members of a project "support!" or is there a different way? I look forward to your reply in due course. Regards, Wesley Mᴥuse 18:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Wesley Mouse. I can look at your nomination(s); however I have two reviews already open, but un-started, on two long articles (International System of Units & History of the metric system and there is one review request before yours. So not much is likely to happen before the end of this month. In respect of A-class articles, these assessments are awarded by individual Wikiprojects. So an article (if appropriate) could rated be GA-class / FA-class "across the board" and also A-class for those projects that use A-class. WP Military History and WikiProject Chemicals, for instance, both uses A-class ratings (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review & Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/List of A-Class articles). Incidentally, the obvious WikiProject for that particular article is Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision, but it does not currently use A-class ratings. Pyrotec (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, Pyrotec. I appreciate that the GA's may take time, and that is fine, I don't mind the wait (allows me to concentrate on other pending tasks). As for the A-class thing, looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Assessment, WikiProject Eurovision appear to allow A's on their quality scale but no articles seem to have been awarded that classification. So what I have done is open up a discussion via the project talk page to see if members would be interested in setting up an A-class review board similar to what Project Military History have, and then hopefully take it from there if the project would be interested. Again, thank you for the advice. Wesley Mᴥuse 20:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I looked at at the Quality subsection for Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Assessment#Instructions and the quality scale goes from Stub to FA (I'm ignoring "lists" and "future"); which is why I said A-class was not being used. In contrast, looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment, A-class is mentioned by name. Possibly, the full system used by other WPs might not be needed, but if your members have an interest in using A-class assessments, your quality subsection will need updating to include a definition of A-class. As far as I can remember, most of the the quality ratings in various wikiprojects projects (certainly the ones that I joined did) were "borrowed" from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, so your wikiproject could follow suite and borrow their A-class definition. Pyrotec (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think I need a caffeine injection. Found WP:ESC/A#R on ProjectEurovision, which is for A-class reviews by the looks of it. Not exactly a prominent place to have that. Ideally A-class reviews for the project should have their own sub-page, just like Military History have. Maybe with this new found knowledge, I may not need to seek project consensus on setting up an A-class review board if there is already somewhere on the project to request assessments for such quality classification. Wesley Mᴥuse 21:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I looked at at the Quality subsection for Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Assessment#Instructions and the quality scale goes from Stub to FA (I'm ignoring "lists" and "future"); which is why I said A-class was not being used. In contrast, looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment, A-class is mentioned by name. Possibly, the full system used by other WPs might not be needed, but if your members have an interest in using A-class assessments, your quality subsection will need updating to include a definition of A-class. As far as I can remember, most of the the quality ratings in various wikiprojects projects (certainly the ones that I joined did) were "borrowed" from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, so your wikiproject could follow suite and borrow their A-class definition. Pyrotec (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, Pyrotec. I appreciate that the GA's may take time, and that is fine, I don't mind the wait (allows me to concentrate on other pending tasks). As for the A-class thing, looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Assessment, WikiProject Eurovision appear to allow A's on their quality scale but no articles seem to have been awarded that classification. So what I have done is open up a discussion via the project talk page to see if members would be interested in setting up an A-class review board similar to what Project Military History have, and then hopefully take it from there if the project would be interested. Again, thank you for the advice. Wesley Mᴥuse 20:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Think you could review this and close it appropriately? Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- OK. Pyrotec (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for that, and sorry. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Review request
Warmest greetings Pyrotec, hope everything is well with you. Would you be able to book me a space for one of your excellent GA reviews? The chap in question is Little Tich who is currently at peer review. There is absolutely no hurry for this (in fact I'm looking at the start of October now at the earliest). Without the fear of sounding sycophantic, your reviews are invaluable to me as they give me an indication whether to proceed to FAC or not. Any help gratefully received. -- CassiantoTalk 19:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi User:Cassianto, thanks for your kind comments. I have two reviews already open, but un-started, on two long articles (International System of Units & History of the metric system) "so start of October" is very unlikely, but "end of October / start of November" is probably achievable. Pyrotec (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)