User talk:Pyrotec

Archives

07Q4 - 08Q1 - 8Q2 - 08Q3 - 08Q4 - 09Q1 - 09Q2 - 09Q3 - 09Q4 - 10Q1 - 10Q2 - 10Q3 - 10Q4 - 11Q1 - 11Q2 - 11Q3 - 11Q4 - 12Q1 - 12Q2 - 12Q3 - 12Q4 - 13Q1 - 13Q2 - 13Q3 - 13Q4 - 14Q1 - 14Q2 - 14Q3 - 14Q4 - 15Q1 - 15Q2 - 15Q3 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 28 days are automatically archived by .

Good article reassessment for Variable-frequency drive

Variable-frequency drive has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Common Cold Unit, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rockefeller Institute was added. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Islands of the Clyde

Islands of the Clyde has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the reassessment page - sorry I don't think this this article is being reviewed against the critera of GAN and GAR, but perhaps what is written on the GAR page is just intended as an opening remark, rather than a serious review.Pyrotec (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cordite

I hate {{citation needed}} and {{not verified in body}} without good cause (and even more unnecessary removal of contents (when I encounter it), and sometimes strive restoring removed contents years after removal. Now I followed an editor I suspected doing mass adding such templates elsewhere to Cordite article.

This article's contents is sound AFAIK (both contents and presentation), I think you fixed the contents more then well in 2008 or so.

Many of those things I already knew (and I think them noncontroversial and needing no citations for me), might not be known to a lay(woo)man. And generations change, so what used to be common knowledge (or even common sense) might be tabula rasa (complete unknown) for (some from the) new generations.

For them a citation or two confirming the (already sound) contents about reasons and need for (and nature of) differences of propellant and brisant explosives, and how it was strived for and achieved, might be useful. You could probably find appropriate citations in no time, so I didn't remove those templates, and am letting you know of my humble wish ;-) to deal with that as well a you seem to usually do. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Adam Air Flight 172

Adam Air Flight 172 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]