User talk:Wronkiew/Archives/2009/March

Poland in the Early Middle Ages GA
I am working on it, just haven't had much time lately. I've corrected the specific items listed under "Prose", and the first and last one under "Original research". The first one under "Focus".

Orczar (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still working on Poland in the Early Middle Ages, will let you know when done.

Orczar (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, but I would like to see this wrapped up this week. Wronkiew (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've concluded making the indicated GA2 corrections on this article. Orczar (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Orczar is still working on the article; perhaps you could comment on talk on his progress and what needs to be done before the article is GA-class? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The unresolved issues are listed at Talk:Poland in the Early Middle_Ages/GA2. See also the message at User talk:Orczar. Hopefully this will be wrapped up very soon. Wronkiew (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Commented. If you find this article interested, you may want to comment on other articles in the Prehistory and protohistory of Poland series, several have been subject to a GA review already, with various outcomes - but more reviews are always better.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"Randomly" I fixed I think. I'll take a look at a couple other remaining issues when I get back home tonight. The lead section has been rewritten already a number of times, some of it at your suggestions. Another major rewriting of the lead section I'm not sure I'll be able to do within the next few days.

Orczar (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied to the lead comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your opinion on this. It looks like there are only one or two issues that need to be fixed before the article is promoted. I left a note on Orczar's talk page. Wronkiew (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your effort in reviewing them! You did a splendid job. Will you have time to look at the other articles in the series? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Which user?
Would you like for me to move the essay into a subdirectory in the userspace of one of the two sockpuppets, and if so, which one? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Move it to the userspace of the primary account, Pickbothmanlol, because he created it. I'm asking because I can't move pages without leaving a redirect behind. Thanks for looking into this. Wronkiew (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A few other pages link to Casual. It was linked in a post by a sock at WP:ER, and was used as evidence in the sockpuppet investigation. Based on that, I'm having second thoughts about moving it without leaving a redirect behind. Thanks for letting me bounce this off you, anyway. Wronkiew (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me know if you want me to move it. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

International Space Station
Just to let you know that the article is now up for FAC at Featured article candidates/International Space Station - thanks for the all the help so far, and please feel free to comment at the FAC page! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer_review/Xgrid/archive1
I would appreciate if you reviewed the article one more time, as I have taken to heart your suggestions. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 08:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, again. Wronkiew (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for 243 Ida
--Dravecky (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Woo hoo! Reyk  YO!  23:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nimbusania's Editor Review
Hello Wronkiew,

I originally created that page by mistake late last year, but realised I did it wrong and never got around to requesting for it to be deleted (it can be deleted). The correct one is here.

Thanks!

И i m b u s a n i a  talk  10:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I closed the review. You can have it deleted by following the instructions at WP:CSD. Wronkiew (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

editor review request
Hi,

I would appreciate a review. I don't actually remember when I made the request, but I knew there was backlog. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I put you back in the queue. Wronkiew (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

review of NGC 7424
Wronkiew,

I want to thank you for the effort you put in to review my article. You were very thorough and made a number of good points which I will work on / correct as I have time. It was nice to have someone both informed and disinterested take a look at what I had come up with. I think your attention adds a lot to Wikipedia. Thanks. Vegasbri (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing complete. Vegasbri (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I recommend that you put the article back into the queue at WP:GAN. The wait time to get an astronomy article reviewed wasn't too bad the last time I checked. Great work improving the article! Wronkiew (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

[Message from Pedro João]
Yes i wanna a editor review.  pedro  joão  10:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. Please fill out the two questions at Editor review/Rogerchocodiles. If you like, I can do the review myself, or I can just put you back in the queue at WP:ER, your choice. Wronkiew (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: GA review of 243 Ida
Sorry, got lots of real-life work to deal with. Including 243 Ida, I have a total of 3 GANs on hold that are sitting on my desk so it's going to take a while before I can attend to any of them. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I've got lots of stuff on my plate too. Wronkiew (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Bubble tea!


 - down  load  |  sign!  has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the bubbliness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!


 * Yuck! No way am I trying that. I'll stick to my imported Twinings English Breakfast, thank you very much. Wronkiew (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Poland
We are now dividing our members into active, semi-active (have not edited a Poland-related article in more then three months) and inactive (have not edited at all for three months or more). You are active on Wikipedia but I see you've not edited any Poland-related articles in in many months; we are moving you to semi-active members category. Please consider participating in our project activities again in the future, we would love to work more closely with you again! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

243 Ida
Yea, I'll check it out. Make sure you notify Ruslik0, Serendipodous, and Kheider as well, they're all very helpful when it comes to astronomical terms.  Ceran  thor 20:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll notify them as well. Wronkiew (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Asteroid tables
Hi! Since I see you are interested in asteroids, you might have some ideas for the discussion here. We have been trying to come up with a solution to the problem of coping with the huge proliferation of stub articles in prospect what with the explosion in the numbers of named and numbered (now ~207,000) asteroids. The proposal has been to create a big table with the essential minimal information for each object, and a link in the table to the Wiki article (if there is one) and to the JPL or other external pages with supporting details. Then the thousands of minimal stubs can be reduced to those which actually have significant additional information. This would please the stub-sorting folks, who have been driven to distraction by the tidal wave of asteroidal stubs that have been created lately. We have been discussing details of what the table format should be, and what the table should contain. I think we are tentatively agreed that asteroids with names get an article, those with only numbers go into the table. At the moment there are three alternatives tables on display, one here and two here. The supporting JPL pages we link to are down for maintenance this weekend, so we have to wait on that. Besides the actual table format & content it is clear, what with the massive numbers involved, that some wiki programming is going to be needed to make one or more bots to do the actual maintenance work, a subject about which I know nothing at the moment. I am hoping to find someone who can think about that as well. Personally, I'd like to create a resource for those of us interested in where there are accessible objects that might have useful minerals conveniently available. Wwheaton (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in the middle of a bunch of other projects right now, but I will be interested in writing a bot to create the asteroid table and modify all the stubs after you decide on a table format. Wronkiew (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fabulous, that's what I was hoping you would say, or else connect me with someone else who could help. Maybe I can also pick up a bit about the programming side myself.  I would really like (personally) to get accurate enough orbital elements that one can estimate the ΔV needed to go from one asteroid to another (or from the vicinity of Earth, of course), together with what is known about spectral type (read chemical composition), size and mass (relevant to how much of the material can actually be reached by mining, etc), and make this available in a computer searchable format.  This may mean combining information into one entry of the table that comes from two or more sources, such as JPL, Minor Planet Center, and Univ. of Pisa in Italy.  And maintaining it current, as the flood of new data comes in.  Thanks,  Wwheaton (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick question
So will this go thru all FPs and update or just the new ones that get passed? ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 17:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just recently passed ones. I'm in the middle of adding delist processing as well. Older FPs still have to be updated manually. Wronkiew (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I'll keep up on it. Let me know when I can stop! ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 23:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

PfP
Hi its Ammel. I posted my RfP 5 hrs ago. You never replied to my last comment or said Done or. Please do. Amlnet49 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied at WP:RFP/R. Wronkiew (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)