User talk:Pyrotec/Archive08Q2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 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) 02:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Assessment Ravenscraig

I've commented (I hope constructively - its not intended as discouragement). I think the article is currently "Start / Low". I've given some suggestions to get it up to Start / Mid. I think it could make "B / High", but you have not made use of information that is already out there (on wikipedia) and in printed form. Pyrotec (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, i hadn't really thought about pollution etc. And to be honest, i have really only just worked out how to properly use the references part! ha. Thats great though, gives me something to work for. Much appreciated. ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (contribs) 07:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Larkhall line

Hi Stewart, I was going around tagging articles, when I came across this orphaned article. I'm not really convinced that it is needed as a standalone article, but its not really covered in the Argyle Line - possible paste into the Argyle Line article and delete? Any thoughts?Pyrotec (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Really a no-brainer in my opinion. Detail should go to the Argyle Line article (it is out of date, since the Sunday service is not included. I would suggest after updating the Argyle Line article, that a redirect to the Argyle Line is provided. There may also be a case for including a bit of this detail in the articles for Mid Lanark Lines and Coalburn Branch (however I have still to put my thinking hat on for the route maps and stub articles for these two lines). --Stewart (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

New MOSNUM policy to address more than just binary prefixes

Since you voted on a proposal to no longer routinely use the IEC prefixes (kibibytes & KiB), I thought you’d be interested to know that the best we could muster at this time is a more general principal here on MOSNUM. I’m sorry I couldn’t deliver anything better at the moment. However, I hope you will agree that it speaks to the basic principal underlying that whole debate. Greg L (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ravenscraig steelworks

Pyrotec - I've split out a Ravenscraig steelworks article from the Ravenscraig article. I think it deserves a page all it to itself. I hope this meets with your approval! - Crosbiesmith (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to jump into someone elses talk pages, but to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure this was a good change. Despite the fact you left no link to the new page. I can perhaps see the point of it having its own page, but there is very little info just now. And you took away the only image from Ravenscraig. And there is no link in Ravenscraig_steelworks back to Ravenscraig. Sorry, but this was a useless edit. Perhaps we should discuss things like this (ie. such major edits) on the articles talk page instead? I must be honest, I really dislike this change. Instead of one "Start-Class" article, you have probably split it into two stubs. If the general consensus is to keep it split, then major work is required for both articles to get them looking well. Right now they both look like crap. Sorry for all this on your page Pyrotech, I have copied all this onto the articles talk page, best to continue any conversations there, yes? ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (secret) 07:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Transportation WikiProjects

I believe Category:WikiProject Transport is specifically for that project and its subprojects, whereas Category:Transportation WikiProjects can be used more broadly for wikiprojects related to transportation which (for whatever reason) don't consider themselves to be subprojects of WikiProject Transport. But I grant you that the WikiProject categorization system is a mess, and I'm unsure how it should be fixed. Stepheng3 (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm working to diffuse categories and projects out of Category:WikiProjects as much as possible. It's not important to me whether the transportation WikiProjects end up under Category:WikiProject Transport or Category:Transportation WikiProjects, though I have a slight preference for the former. Let me know how you wish to proceed, and I'll cooperate. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll vote on binary prefixes

I note that you voted on a proposed MOSNUM policy for Wikipedia to use the common binary prefixes like “kilobit” rather than the IEC prefixes (“kibibit”). Since you took an interest in the issue at that time, I thought it proper to let you know that the proposal has since morphed into a broader policy (MOSNUM #Follow current literature). A straw poll on whether the basic principle underlying that policy is sound is currently ongoing here at Talk MOSNUM #Straw poll. I hope you read the policy and vote as you see fit. Hope to see you there. Greg L (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 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) 02:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Women's roles in the World Wars

I wouldn't have called the recent anon IP edit to Women's roles in the World Wars "vandalism"... maybe the drive-by about-face rewrite by a first time editor should have been noted as well-intentioned revisionism or at least good faith. WP:FAITH. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I could accept a good faith edit. What was added was placed in the wrong section - it was nothing to do with pre-WW I, which is the title of the section; but I might have accepted it elsewhere, albeit as an unreferenced POV. It was more a question of what was removed - the removed statement was directly linked to the following sentences, which had inline citations. I'd been catching up on about five days of changes across and number of articles and (unfortunately) many IP edits do turn out to be vandalism.Pyrotec (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, inexpertly applied, unreferenced, good faith edit. ;^) ... Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)