User talk:Pyrotec/Archive11Q1

UK Waterways in the Signpost
I received the invite below & was going to talk about Somerset canals & the River Parrett so I thought you might be interested.&mdash; Rod talk 08:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject UK Waterways for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day.


 * Thanks Rod. I'll have a look at it tomorrow (well, Friday). As a result of Christmas and New Year I've not done much at all on wikipedia with the result that I have a backlog of WP:GAN reviews part done and unanswered questions. A Happy New Year to you and sorry for the tardy response time. Pyrotec (talk)

Standedge Tunnels article
Hi, I noticed that you contributed to the /Comments page on this article. I have left a note on its talk page about the current text on the canal tunnel. I wondered if you might have some thoughts. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Pigeon photographer
Thanks for reviewing this article, and more generally for keeping the GA process alive. I will fix any problems you find as soon as I can, but until early January I won't have access to my usual libraries, and there will even be periods without internet access. I hope the resulting delays are OK at this time of the year. Otherwise, with your first two comments an alternative would be to comment out some parts until I can improve the referencing, but that might be detrimental to the article's overall quality.

Your comment about photographic film surprised me, simply because this topic played no big role in the sources. I think I remember reading that Neubronner cut the film down to the various sizes that fit his cameras. Of course he didn't use collodion but the standard black and white film material that must have been a commodity at his time. The 16 mm film mentioned later is relevant because Michel managed to replace a film of 3 mm width by one of 16 mm width, and a fixed length of 8 mm by something much longer on rolls, with a transporting mechanism -- and all this in a camera that looks superficially the same as Neubronner's and isn't much heavier. I could make this a bit clearer in the article, but since my sources aren't very clear about this either, it would be a bit OR-ish. Hans Adler 02:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Turns out Neubronner used both film and glass plates with pigeons, but there is very little information. I couldn't find the passage that says he cut down the film, so maybe I misremembered this. Also, it appears that some of Neubronner's cameras did actually transport film, although presumably they did so continuously, by means of a pneumatic mechanism.
 * I think I have done everything now. Feel free to come back to the review whenever you feel like it. Thanks again for your efforts. Hans Adler 00:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you once again for a GA promotion. It has been a pleasure. The article has been proposed as TFA for April Fools Day, and although it's not my favourite proposal I am thinking of proposing it for FA. If you have noticed any additional problems that you have discounted because they don't matter for GA, then I would love to hear about them. But of course I don't want to keep you from your valuable GA work. Hans Adler 15:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

GAN
You have been involved in reviewing some of my previous nominations at GAN, and I wonder if the article on Tabley House, a former stately home in Cheshire, would be of interest to you. (I hope it is not bad Wikietiquette to draw your attention to it.) --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking it on. No rush. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your work on this. Seems it did not cause you too much trouble! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

GAN for clotted cream.
Thanks for the review, glad I've got to the right level! Worm 17:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

GAN request for Mantra-Rock Dance
Hi Pyrotec. You reviewed my first GAN, Themes in Avatar, with scrutiny, ease, and elegance, and gave me valuable suggestions regarding its further improvement. Many thanks again. Would you mind looking at my next GAN, Mantra-Rock Dance listed under Culture and societe and, if you find the topic of any interest at all, do its GA review as well whenever you can? I would rather have it reviewed by an editor I trust. Many thanks regardless of your answer. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Cinosaur. I'm happy to review it as a GAN; and've signed up for the GAN. Its a short article, and I see its already gone through WP:PR, so it should not take too long for me to do. However, it is currently third in a list of three (one long and two short) reviews, but I expect to finish them all before the end of this month. Pyrotec (talk)
 * Thank you very much, Pyrotec. Looking forward to your feedback. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the GA review, Pyrotec. Much obliged. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheshire country house
I don't know, but would you be interested in reviewing Adlington Hall, another Cheshire country house, recently submitted to GAN? If not, could you recommend another reviewer of similar quality to yourself? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry, but you've been beaten to it! And I only submitted it a few hours ago (others take days/weeks to be reviewed).  Sorry to "disturb" you.  Best wishes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Rollback on gunpowder
Rolling back non-vandalism edits is not allowed and can result in a removal privileges. Marcus Qwertyus   02:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reviewing La Stazione. I'm sure the whole station/depot thing is just regional terminology, since both railroad depot and train depot redirect to train station. I'll try to work on it before nominating it for FA, or at least find a source to say that both terms are used interchangeably in North America. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

...and also the Clyde. Apologies for some of the prose slackness and will attend to CalMac issue soonest. Ben  Mac  Dui  13:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Mantra-Rock Dance as FAC
Hello Pyrotec. I took a deep breath and nominated Mantra-Rock Dance, which you had granted the GA status, as a FAC. I just thought that your comments as its GA reviewer, should you feel inclined to give any, will be a valuable addition to the FAC discussion there. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ekebergbanen (company)
Thank you for taking the time to review this article. However, I'm planning to perform a complete rewrite of the article in the weekend based on the 1947 book (I know, it's a WP:PRIMARY, but it's the best for this article since it is the only book ever written about the company), so the usual "Pyrotec-delay" would greatly appreciated this time as well! Cheers,  Eisfbnore  talk 21:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. I have other work to do, so it will probably be Tuesday now before I start. Pyrotec (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Safety fuse
Just wanted to say a quick thank you for your work on safety fuse. Good stuff. DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I don't tend to "write" many wikipedia articles, I do much more reviews, so I'm enjoying myself. It could take a month of so, but I aim to double the content of the article and bring it up to a higher standard. Pyrotec (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

GAN
Hi there Pyrotec! It's been a while, but I was hoping that you could review Calabozos for a GAN? It would be greatly appreciated!  ceran  thor 17:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Might, do it tonight. Pyrotec (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You can review it whenever you like or have time, don't feel rushed.  ceran  thor 17:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks!  ceran  thor 19:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. A nice and easy one to do. Pyrotec (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

good article reassessment
An article that you have been involved in editing, Erebus has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Gunpowder
The information was taken from the History of Gunpowder article, I apologize if I didn't check the sources to the original content, but I assumed the article was reliable and was just trying to help by moving some of the content from that page to the main Gunpowder one.

About "The consensus is that this was spread from China, through the Middle East, and then into Europe, although there remains some dispute over whether the inventions were made independent of Chinese contact." The first part of the sentence ("the consensus is that this was spread from China, through the Middle East, and then into Europe") is the mainstream scholarly opinion, and is from Buchanan, page 2, who states that "With its ninth century AD origins in China, the knowledge of gunpowder emerged from the search by alchemists for the secrets of life, to filter through the channels of Middle Eastern culture, and take root in Europe." The second part of the sentence, "although there remains some dispute over whether the inventions were made independent of Chinese contact" comes from Easton's book on Roger Bacon, that credits Bacon with the independent invention of gunpowder, although this claim is controversial, and is disputed among scholars. The sentence "Gunpowder was, according to prevailing academic consensus, discovered in the 9th century by Chinese alchemists searching for an elixir of immortality" comes from Kelley (Gunpowder: Alchemy, Bombards, and Pyrotechnics), on page 2-5. I think I may have mixed up the sources from copying and pasting off other wikipedia articles, since I am new to this and not sure how to correctly reference. I am not trying to make any controversial claims, only ones that represent scholarly consensus.

So can I add the content back, with the right references, if you are willing to show me how?

P.S. I did not know that edit summaries were needed. I have read the help article and will write them from now on.
 * I am not sure how to format references. Where can I find out how? Is there a help page?--Ninthabout (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Rossen
Hi, Pyrotec, many thanks for the GA review of Robert Rossen! --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

John Inglis Question
Hey Pyrotec,

I'm conducting research on the John Inglis Company during WW2, and wondered where you located the information you added to the Wiki article. In particular the line:

"By 1943 they were producing 60% of the Bren machine guns destined for the British Commonwealth forces, and 30% of the British Army's own requirements."

Is there a source for this? I am having difficulty finding this information elsewhere. Thank you.

Milamber (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Milamber, thanks for your note. I'm not Canadian, so I'm using British sources. I wrote that several years ago when I had access to a University Library and it likely came from one or both of two sources, and possibly its a summary of more than one source.


 * The one source that I have on my bookshelf at home now is: . John Inglis & Co is mentioned on pages 7 & 9; the Inglis Bren gun factory on page 9; and the Bren gun (production in Canada) on pages 7, 9, 15-17, 188, 222 & 223. Page 223 states "... by 1943 Canada was making 60% of the aggregate world output of of Bren guns". H Duncan Hall, with C C Wrigley, also wrote another volume in the same series, Studies of Overseas Supplies, which I beleive has more details (possibly in tabular format). I'm sure that I photocopied the relevant pages, but I can't find them at present; if I find it I'll give you an update.


 * There is also a 36 page book (which I have, via Amazon.ca) Canada supplies the Tools of War! (1941). Publisher=Director of public Information, Ottawa, under the authority of Hon. C D Howe, Minister of Munitions and Supply, and Hon. J T Thorson, Minister of National War Services. No real details other than the quote (on page 17) "The factory which produces Bren guns (see opposite page) has the largest output of any automatic gun plant in the world" and it has some nice pictures.


 * Hall and his colleagues were official historians so they had access to official records. Many of these records have more detail than what appears in the published books and the original typed drafts (and/or draft chapters) of the books, with manuscript changes, are in our National Archives (see and ). The records are not online, so unfortunately you've need to go yourself, pay some one else to go, or pay the archives to copy them (I bought one set of WW I service records from Ottawa of a distant relative). I have photographed several complete files for some other the other volumes of this series. I plan to go to the Archives some time this year (1911) to do some other work, so at some future date I may be able to supply more info (for free), but that is not a firm promise, it depends on my having "spare time" when I'm there, and (sorry) it will not be very soon. Pyrotec (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Pyrotec,
 * Your reply truly exceeded my greatest expectations. I had significant doubts that I would receive any reply, let alone a comprehensive response to my inquiry. Thank you! I really appreciate your efforts in looking through the sources again. I'm sure you had better things to do. I will myself be at the Ottawa Archives all week and look for more information about Inglis production figures, but it may be that I will rely on your Hall source after all. I will look for these titles at the archives, as well as talk to the archivist about official records. I will have to double check but I believe I consulted the "Canada supplies the Tools of War!" at my University Library and found it to be relatively unhelpful. Thanks again ! Milamber (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Geographia Neoteriki
Thank you for your time reviewing the article.Alexikoua (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
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) 16:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Linguistic competence
G'day, I talked with the students and we would like to ask for an extension until March 18th. We need to re-borrow a ocuple of books from the library, which takes time, and Mar 14-18 is our recess, which will give us a chance to concentrate. Would that be OK with you?


 * Thanks for your note. I will consider my response and reply, probably on Friday or Saturday. Pyrotec (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away
 WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Bjorøy Tunnel
I am quite new to GA reviewing, but I have made some comments on the Bjorøy Tunnel, based on my own work on Schuylkill River bridges, and some experience with a FA review of Johnstown Inclined Plane. It seems to me that the tunnel article is a long way from GA status. Any advice on participating in GA reviews would be very welcome. I am not at all concerned with the contest. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi DThomsen8, thanks for your note. I have added some more comments on Talk:Bjorøy Tunnel/GA1, but I will reply separately to you on participating in GA reviewing, probably on Friday or Saturday. Pyrotec (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Somerset Levels
On Talk:Somerset Levels you bravely/foolishly said "As MF begins to feel more comfortable with the prose, I'll help with sorting out unresolved questions/problems." MF has now finished copyediting & I've added the last of the page numbers etc. A map has also been added as recommended in the Peer review. I've now got so close to this article I can't see the wood for the trees but have identified some references which might not be considered reliable and am trying to replace or improve these. Any help you could offer with a new set of eyes or different source material would be great.&mdash; Rod talk 14:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Rod, I have three GAN's to review first, but I hope to start on about Wednesday or Thursday. Pyrotec (talk)
 * No rush I have plenty of other things I should be getting on with.&mdash; Rod talk 18:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you are watching the [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Somerset Levels/archive1 FAC] on this but the bit "about 6 metres (20 ft) above mean sea level (roughly west of the M5 motorway). The inland Moors can be 6 metres (20 ft) below peak tides" which I think you added or edited has been challenged as needing a source - have you got anything suitable?&mdash; Rod talk 18:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not watching it, because I did not realise the review had started. I'll add it to my watch list. Pyrotec (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a copy of as it is missing a page number. If not I will order a copy from the library, but that may take some time!&mdash; Rod talk 08:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I do, it is less than one metre away. Pyrotec (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, could you add the page no as Libraries West will not loan it the only copy is for reference in Taunton.&mdash; Rod talk 08:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now done. Pyrotec (talk)

Caistor Canal article
Hi Pyrotec, sorry to bother you again, but I was looking at the Caistor Canal article, and significant bits of it have been removed, by an editor who does not have a user page or a talk page, and the removal seems to be his only contribution. I made two minor edits before I realised. I am not sure if I should revert the edit, since it contained statements which appeared to be referenced, because the refs were still in place, but were not supported by the reference. (eg the number of locks was increased from 5 to 6, although the source specifically explains that Priestley wrote that there were six, but there were only five, and the article also stated this). A little bit of guidance would be appreciated. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I have since found out that a Chris Padley (same name as editor) supplied Jim Shead with photos of the Caistor Canal, taken as part of a Society for Linconshire History and Archaeology visit in 2006. I have also discovered that there were indeed 6 locks, as I found the 1824 2-inch map, on which the sixth lock is clearly marked. I have added a paragraph to explain this. Thanks again. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Montpelier Hill
Thanks for the review, and the pass! - Joe King (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Churchill Machine Tool
Thanks for offering to review Churchill Machine Tool Company. I am new to GARs so this will be an interesting experience. Well, I hope so anyway! - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, should I allow you to trawl through the entire article (no rush!) and then respond to your review points? It would seem to me to be less confusing for you if I did things this way - you would not be trying to hit a moving target. - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * More detailed comment on my talk page, but gist is: thanks very much! - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Castle Park, Bristol
Yep, spotted you'd started a review, but I didn't even know it had been nominated before that. I did Buildings and architecture of Bristol but that doesn't have that much which would be useful. The Bristol Bridge riot of 1793 may well be relevant but we don't have much on that either. I added a map & a talk page comment about some sources. I believe User:Jezhotwells has Reece Witherspoon's book which would be really useful but I don't have a copy. If I were the nominator I would argue the park didn't exist before WWII & therefore only a slight mention of the earlier history was needed - but then again I wouldn't have nominated it in its present state.&mdash; Rod talk 21:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in getting this up to spec, and also for passing it! RedSquirrel (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Update - Churchill
Well, Churchill Machine Tool Company has just taken a pasting! I'm not yet sure how to respond as this article has been checked out by numerous people with an interest in British industrial history etc since its rescue from AfD. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know in case it impacts on you in some way. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think that user is behaving like his username. I will watch events unfold; and may particulate if/when appropriate. Pyrotec (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

New Mills GA
I have now looked through your notes on the review page for New Mills and done as much as I can to improve it. See what you think then maybe I could nominate it for GA again. RCSprinter123 (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Churchill Machine Tool Company
Since you played a large part in nominating the page for GA class, I would like your view on the edits I've made. My major issue with this page is Notability (events). I do not see the lasting importance of how many people worked at an office location, or what the exact address of all 4 offices were, and what the location of a person's address was at the date of their patent, but that's just me. Wikipedia's policy supports a lot tighter focus than what I see on the page See INDISCRIMINATE.

Looking at your review, I wished you would have reviewed the entire page from top to bottom before claiming "looks OK" on the last half of the article. I'm not saying the page isn't well-referenced or that Sitush didn't research it well. I feel this page needs improvement because as a reader, if I wanted to learn about the company, which by its title should be the "Churchill Machine Tool Company", I have to sort through tons of material and history of the parent company. The only time I can even start to read about the Churchill Machine Tool Company is far into the page, and it is not even given its own section. So even then, the focus is on the parent company with some scattered facts on the title topic. This makes the page largely inaccessible for a reader hoping to learn something about the topic, which is not Churchill and Co.

I saw your comment above, and I do wish you could put your puns and humor away and give this page - and my edits - some serious consideration.--Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 17:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The requirements for Good Articles are given in WP:WIAGA. Since you were involved in a WP:GAN you aught to have known that. You are presummably "complaining" about the article in respect of "Broad in its coverage", so the relevant test is compliance or not with WP:WIAGA 3(a) and (b). Notability (events) and INDISCRIMINATE have no relevance on the "class" of an article. Pyrotec (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Pyrotech, I am sorry that it has come to this but referring it for community discussion preserves your integrity & in fact reaffirms it. I'm amazed that Screwball23 has not taken up the opportunity to explain the perceived problems with the article itself on that article's talk page, despite invitations to do so, but I guess that is life. We all have our different methods and reasons. I've had one previous series of contacts with this editor - User_talk:Sitush. I am totally bemused but feel that it is probably inappropriate for me to comment in the review discussion. Again, this is a new area for me & I may change my mind but my gut feeling is that this really is a case of letting the community take its course & that my intervention might work against the process. GAR is to me a rather dramatic means to resolve this, given that the lack of explanation for recent edits on the article TP, but so be it. I really do not understand these accusations that you only looked at half of the article - it certainly did not feel like that from my perspective! - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

GAN
Many thanks for your review of Gawsworth Old Hall; for your promptness, and of course for the outcome. Also thanks for the tweaks. I wondered about the conversion template. It looked funny, and did not add anything, so I did not bother (but I understand your concern about the police). I was also interested in your additions of "|ref=harv". It seemed to work OK without it, so what does it do? I must say that I had thought of inviting you to conduct this review, but I was not sure if it were Wikietiquette. I wish I'd asked you to do my other recent GAN, which resulted in an impasse between the reviewer and myself (fortunately helped out by a mediator). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

River Don Navigation
Thanks for the recent review GA of River Weaver. I am now working on River Don Navigation, and wondered if you had 2 minutes to have a quick look at the Structures section. I'm not sure whether the use of sections in this way will pass the "flow" test for its English, particularly since some of the sub-sections are very small. (Though not as small as many of those in the River Don, South Yorkshire, also added by the same editor). I just need to know if you think this type of format would pass GA or not. Thanks if you have the time. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
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) 22:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A class for fluorine
Just a note to not overreact to this: A class is lower than GA in WP:ELEMENTS classification, i.e. it is rather subjective and not to be taken seriously. Materialscientist (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Fluorine
Hi Sbharris, Well I do know about essential uses of things like BFCs, but that is as much as I'll say. They (BCF) work by starving the fire of "oxygen": so in an aircraft the engine housing is flooded with BCF in the case of a fire. I would certainly not recommending flooding the cabin of a passenger aircraft with BFCs; that certainly would produce hypoxia and people would die. Same with nuclear and non-nuclear submarines, a compartment can be flooded with BCF and people can remain in it provided that they are wearing BA sets (air or oxygen) but I would not like to do it myself. However, "problems" can occur when the captain decides to test the fire supression system and discharges half a tonne of BCF just to put a "tick in the box" - I tested the system and it worked (signed) "captain", today's-date. I suspect that you were "letting off steam", I'm not sure that your comments were related to awarding or not-awarding the article GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't know the first thing about BFCs. If they worked as you say, argon could replace them (and argon is actually used in many fire suppression systems). BFCs work additionally by decomposing in a flame to produce bromine atoms which act as free-radical reaction chain-terminators to stop a fire. It's quite possible to stand in a room with 20% BFC, breathing normally and comfortably, and yet be unable to light a match. That used to be used as a demo in the old days of TV when there was the strange idea of better living through chemistry. It's quite possible some aircraft use amounts of fire suppression BFC that would be suffocating, but that's not REQUIRED, and is not the issue. S  B Harris 18:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Your edit comment
This edit comment suggests that you may be unfamiliar with the meaning of wp:Vandalism. Please be careful how you use it, there's a lot of baggage that goes with the term. In this case, it is clearly an inappropriate characterization of what is simply an errant edit. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Ecology/GA3
Just making sure you didn't forget about this; I won't rush you, I know that's gonna me a tough one to review due to its size. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

St. John's
I'm trying to look for help with the lead. I'm not good with them and don't really know what to say. Is that the only issue now? Newfoundlander&amp;Labradorian (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to get in done ASAP, I've been busy but should be able to look at it now. Newfoundlander&amp;Labradorian (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Bot changing RDX citations
Thanks for chasing the bot changed cites in RDX. Glrx (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Typhoon
Thank you for the review (so far) of the typhoon article. I made some changes four days ago, and was curious if any of them took care of the issues you mentioned. If they do, strike out the comments which have been taken care of so I know what is left to fix. Thanks. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. I'm sorry for the "gap". I have replied on the review page and subsequently added more comments: it is now On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * These things happen. The last concerns should now be addressed. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)