User talk:Pyrotec

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Archives
  1. up to December 2007
  2. January - March 2008
  3. April - June 2008
  4. July - Sept 2008
  5. October - December 2008
  6. January - March 2009
  7. April - June 2009
  8. July - Sept 2009
  9. October - December 2009
  10. January - March 2010
  11. April - June 2010
  12. July - September 2010
  13. October - December 2010
  14. January - March 2011
  15. April - June 2011
  16. July - September 2011
  17. October - December 2011
  18. January - March 2012
  19. April - June 2012
  20. July - September 2012
  21. October - December 2012
  22. January - March 2013
  23. April - June 2013

Contents


Good Article Nominations Request For Comment

Symbol support vote.svg
A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here.

At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support.

If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread.

Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.

Eh?

Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions are not the instructions for Good article nominations? I was just told they were. If those aren't the instructions, where are they? PraetorianFury (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That is the same link as the third link at Wikipedia:Good_articles on the right side, where it says, "Good article instructions" ...? PraetorianFury (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for admitting their your revert was wrong and that the instructions for GA review is indeed located where I linked originally. I have therefore restored the link to the article in question.
I'm not sure how you concluded that I hadn't read Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions. Perhaps you think this edit and this edit were just lucky coincidences? And I'm not sure how you can conclude that I had never read Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria after I just made an edit to it. But I guess actually reviewing my contributions and diffs would take more time and hastily responding with a condescending, inaccurate, and unwelcoming message simply can't wait!
I had already reviewed the page before the GA nomination process began, which was the meaning of the "top to bottom" comment. And I had worked with Arildnordby on issues that I thought were pressing, as can still be seen on the article talk page. As you may or may not know, this is part of the GA nomination process, "If a problem is easy to resolve, you are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself."
I'm glad you were able to observe that this was my first time doing a GA review, after I had repeated it in multiple posts in multiple locations. I'm not sure why you're choosing to "forgive" me rather than "thank" me for my contributions. If you want to complain about anything, that the process was done out of order seems to be the only part that was done wrong. Which is why I left the nomination open for over a week, a good faith effort on my part to allow other editors to contribute or dispute my reasoning. Since other users had already given Arildnorby several commendations for his work on the article, I was confident that I was being objective. You have not disputed this. I'm not sure what you're upset about, but your hostility is certainly unwarranted.
If you want more out of a review than "pass" or "fail" why don't you consider specifying it in the instructions. As far as I can tell, since only one editor is involved, documentation is not needed in any particular place in any particular format. If you're not satisfied with this, you need to change the instructions, not attack me for following them. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Lol, child, if you think you're fooling anyone by saying this message lacks hostility, you are mistaken. Little known fact about Wikipedia editors: we are not stupid. You may think you are supremely clever by skirting around the rules at WP:CIVILITY, but the intent is clear.
Tell you what, you go ahead and report me to the GAN review police and slap me with the worst penalties that their authority will allow. Lol.
"| topic = Socsci" was not copied from anywhere. Even on careful review of my edits you're overlooking things to serve whatever vendetta it is you're serving. But this is besides the point, I did infact read each of the articles mentioned, even going so far as visiting Template:Article_history to make sure my use of the template was correct. But please, tell me how I did not read what I did read because that will accomplish something.
You are correct that forgive is my word. You're probably only used to conversing with other kids your age, but on Wikipedia, editors can often infer meaning that is not explicitly stated. When you say, "although I'm fully prepared to accept that you did what you did for all the best of reasons" it is clear that you are implying forgiveness for some imagined transgression.
I do not consider your words "condensing", but that they are condescending is obvious. It is telling that you consider simply initiating a discussion with another editor an act of hostility.
Could you explain to me how you were aware of my history of edits and fixes to the article, and yet claimed that "there is no evidence that you have reviewed it, or even reviewed it against WP:WIAGA" ?
I messaged you to ask why you had reverted me at Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria. You accidentally admitted that you were wrong in your resulting rant about my scandalous abuse of the GA process. As I said before, I left the nomination active for a week to let editors who might have a problem with it contribute. If you think you've discovered something wrong, feel free to re-open the nomination and prove your point, otherwise, spare me your empty threats and e-peen flaunting. I'm not interested in whatever crusade you're on. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you are critical, Pyrotec!

But, is it really worth hassling PraetorianFury over this? If you think the Impalement article ought to have a more thorough review, then send it to reassessmentArildnordby (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As for previous quickfail

It is true that the previous quickfail was !due to lack of citations". However, as I pointed out then, was that those were provided in the main text below, so that "unclear citation style" would be a more correct assessment, as you can see for yourself. Old impalement, 29th JanuaryArildnordby (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

REmoved comment was WAY beyond acceptable, I'm extremely sorry I was pissed off for a moment.Arildnordby (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem With Lead section

I make the following observations in the lead: 1. "Impalement is the penetration of an organism by an elongated foreign object such as a stake, pole, or spear, and this usually implies complete perforation of the central mass of the impaled body." Is this the point you have problems with?

2. " In particular, techniques designed to effect penetration merely of extremities like hands or feet are excluded from this article (for such cases, see, for example, crucifixion)." Is this delimiting what you have problems with?

3. "While the term "impalement" may be used in reference to an accident, this article has a primary focus on .." Is this delimiting what you have problems with?

4. " has a primary focus on impalement as a form of execution, " Surely not this? It summarizes the main focus of the article

5. "how it was performed" The article contains many such forms of impalement, thus the lead description

6. "highlighting some places where it was used" Is this problematic? If so, why?

7. "In particular, the article surveys impalement as a form capital punishment meted out by the judiciary," Here, I point to the central core. Is that wrong?

8. "but also, secondarily, some examples from generalized massacres within the context of war, rebellion or persecution have been included" Is this misrepresentative of the article?

9. "Furthermore, examples of sacrificial customs where impalement of either humans or animals has been a central element in the ritual have been included." Was this wrong to mention in the lead?

10. "Impalement has also been used as a way of inflicting post mortem indignities " OR this?

11. " been used as a means to prevent the dead from rising from the graves" Or this?

12. " Impalement has also figured in myths, legends, literature and films," Or this?

13. " Finally, a few examples are given of impalement in context of animals, as in animals using impalement on prey" OR this?

14. "hunting and preservation techniques in which impalement is a central element" OR this?

These are the 14 distinguishable classes of content I chose to include in the lead. Are any of them wrong to include? Or are there other classes of content I ought to have included.

As yet, you haven't made any specific points of criticism, feel free to do so.Arildnordby (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for tips on lead!

I'll work on those as my next project. I had just finished a more informative addition to the Lead, when I saw your message. Basically, I include there inferrable conclusions (i.e, inferable from main body) of temporal and geographical extent of the practice, along with "Main Classes" of impalement techniques surveyed, and something on survival time and the two sources of pain consistently reported that the impaled suffered from (pain by involuntary movement, or just having the damn stake in the body, and secomndly, an extreme sense of thirst). Those elements are important enough, I think for Read-Lead-Only-readers to be given.Arildnordby (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for the thorough review of Giffnock and the promotion to GA :) Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 22:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 15:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Pyrotec. You have new messages at Ignocrates's talk page.
Message added Ignocrates (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fyi, the Gospel of the Ebionites article is currently under review for WP:FAC if you are interested in helping out. Ignocrates (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Pyrotec. I would appreciate it if you could find the time to review and comment on WP:Featured_article_candidates/Gospel_of_the_Ebionites/archive1. I'm concerned the FAC nomination is going to fail from a lack of reviewer participation. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ignocrates. The problem for me is that I'm going on holiday and I shall not be back until 29th May. I can make a contribution then, but not before. I will add a note to the review, and I hope that it is still open when I return. Pyrotec (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Lloyd

Great news about Lloyds new GA status, thank you very much for reviewing. See you on the next one hopefully! --CassiantoTalk 08:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No slight intended

I hold a view that every article should be a GA, not just those that happen to be. GAs themselves encourage that in other articles, and yes, it can be used as a tool to ensure no slipping of standards. We do not diverge at all. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your review of Sharpe, Paley and Austin and your helpful comments about the lead, which I accept. I doubt that I shall take it to the firing squad of FAC, but time will tell. Meanwhile I am very pleased that it is a GA. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)