User talk:Wronkiew

Bubble tea!

-download | 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)

Wikipedia: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| talk} 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. Ceranthor 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? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 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! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 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  Not done. Please do. Amlnet49 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied at WP:RFP/R. Wronkiew (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

GRB 970508 FAC

Hey mate! I've submitted GRB 970508 to FAC here. You are familiar with the content and how the article has progressed, so would you mind leaving some comments at the FAC? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I fear that I may be too familiar with the article to participate objectively at FAC, but I'll see if I can do some copyediting. Wronkiew (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Aye, a random support from you might turn a few heads, but you clearly knew what you were doing at the GAN, and you're not afraid to say "Listen, idiot, this is wrong," which is exactly what any good FAC needs! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, I believe I have addressed your two concerns. Would you mind having another look and telling me what you think? Thanks, mate. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take another look at it tonight. Wronkiew (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey mate. I have responded to your most recent concern at the FAC. In addition, you recently raised various concerns while copyediting and inserting comments into the article, all of which I have responded to. Would you mind having another look at your various concerns to see which have been satisfactorily dealt with? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Er, thanks! I'm a tad confused, though. It didn't look to me as though you were entirely satisfied, but Karanacs promoted it anyway. I've left a note on his/her talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 06:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I also replied there. I think the assessment was correct, but if you want more suggestions for improving the article, here they are:

• Merge the measurements of the host galaxy's brightness. You should only report one number to avoid confusing people.
• "Distance scale and emission model" should include some hard numbers.
• Move the observations by Calar Alto Observatory out of the characteristics section unless you can tie the absence of a detected signal to some characteristic of the burst.

Other than that, you did address my concerns. Wronkiew (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'll try to address those concerns at some point, but I'll probably be spending most of my energy on Gamma-ray burst now that it's at FAC (you're welcome to join in on the fun!). In any case, I really appreciate your help. GRB 970508 wouldn't be what it is today without the persistent efforts you put into it. My goal was to create a paragon for all other GRB articles to follow, and you made that possible. Thank you. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Dusty Bot request

DustyBot is working fantastically. Very nice to be relieved of that duty. But on a design note, is it possible to place the template after the {{Information}} template under a header of "Recognition"? I've been doing that in the past (see example) and it looks good (keeps things orderly). Let me know what you think. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 01:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to place it after the information header, but the prevalent practice on Commons seems to be to place assessment templates first. I could make the bot check for an awards or recognition section and add the template there, but if the section exists, the page probably already has an assessment template, which DustyBot would modify. Does Commons have a recommended image page layout? Wronkiew (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No clue; admittedly a personal preference. Though I have seen others being annoyed by the template coming first. But maybe we can start a trend? The description really should come first; it's the most important part. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw many pages on Commons where the Assessment tag goes after the information template. It'll be tricky to make it work right, but I'll see what I can do. Wronkiew (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

:-) ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is done. New assessment templates will be placed after the information template. Wronkiew (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I very much appreciate. Allows any user to see the most important part first, the caption! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 07:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

New account: Hometown Kid sockpuppet

What!? That is not mine who the hell is that. I did not create that account, this user IS impersonating me. I want him deleted, now! Thank you. Hometown Kid (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Impersonator blocked, user page deleted. Wronkiew (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Review

Thanks a lot for the review. I often find it easier to make incremental edits to pages, and I have just thought that this could get irritating for people with those pages on their watchlists, so I will attempt to cut down on that. As for the Hughes Medal work, whilst I see your point, I don't see why the page would be deleted (since it is in my userspace, and doesn't need to be deleted), and also I am not too worried about the attribution issue (I gave Ironholds permission to move the page). That said, I will work this out better in future, referencing the workpage when merging content into the articlespace. Again, thanks a lot for the comments and the review, it means a lot. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 20:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Your Case Against Me

I don’t know that much about Wikipedia. I’ve learned more tonight than I have since I first signed up for a user account. But I’m still a relative newbie in terms of my skill and expertise.

But I can say that I know three things.

One, I am almost totally innocent of all the charges you have levied against me and I have tried my upmost best to prove that in my poor pitiful defense.

Two, I am no Native American / Indian, I have no idea who Joseph Eagle Feather is and thusly have never threatened anyone with legal action on this site

And three, you are way more experienced here, so you will probably get me kicked off this site, my innocence be dammed.

I can honestly say that I wish that I never heard of the stupid site. Any fun that I’ve ever had here has been totally eclipsed by this nonsense.Nuada79 (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nuada79. Wronkiew (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Revert at ISO 639-1 language matrix

Thanks for that. As there were intermediate edits by other users, Huggle and I processed it as vandalism. I have retracted the warning and sent a peace dove. Thanks again. :) Pyrrhus16 18:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for taking care of this. Wronkiew (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thankspam

Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark 23:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa

Paintings of smiling people are creepy. Wronkiew (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed SpinningSpark 11:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 21 April 2009 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. End of line. DustyBot (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you operate the archival bot, is there a way you can program it similar to User:GimmeBot in order to add the {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}} templates to the archived pages?--Truco 13:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Already done. Wait and see what happens on April 21. Wronkiew (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see now. But you shouldn't add to the archive until they are officially archived, because the instructions changed. Originally you were suppose to add your request to the archive regardless, but now it will be added once archived.--Truco 14:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I'll make the code change tonight. Thanks for pointing this out. Wronkiew (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem.--Truco 14:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

For your work...

		The Original Barnstar
		For your invaluable bot work both here and at Commons, I award you the original barnstar. Please keep it up; you have a bot-solution for so many tedious issues. Thank you! ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope to start coding the new FPC task soon, just have to finish a few other projects first. Wronkiew (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Request for bot approval

Go ahead and close it, I'll request for a script to be made at WP:BTR in the near future. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 11:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)