User talk:Wronkiew/Archives/2009/January
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
WP:DUSTY comments
Hi, I just wanted to point out that the (otherwise excellent) page WP:DUSTY currently contains some 20+ articles of the type July 18 (Eastern Orthodox liturgics) and the like. Is it possible to have only one article of this series in the list, to make room for more variety? Cheers, --Zvika (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is fixed now, sorry for the delay. In the future you can add search strings to User:DustyBot/Article groups to collapse sets of articles. Wronkiew (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Peer review request
Hi, I noticed that you're listed as one of the volunteers for peer reviews. I was wondering whether you could possibly find time to have a look at this review of 2008 in spaceflight. Thanks. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 10:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Added some new images and replied to your comments. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Poland in the Early Middle Ages/GA2
Thank you for the in-depth review of Poland in the Early Middle Ages. It will take me more than a week to address the issues though.
Orczar (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am willing to keep the review open for as long as you are making significant progress towards meeting the criteria. I know it's frustrating to have to wait so long for a review, but perhaps you could withdraw some of your other nominations while Early Middle Ages and Prehistory are on hold? Wronkiew (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Dispatch, thanks
Thank you so much for the work on Wikipedia:FCDW/TempFPreview; it still needs so much tweaking, and since I'm not familiar with FP, there's not much I can do. If you want to compare to some earlier Dispatches (in terms of the audience we aim for), you can browse them at {{FCDW}}. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the encouragement! Wronkiew (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- The layout/organization at the bottom of the article still troubles me; any ideas? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the floating images should be turned into galleries, as was done in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-13/Dispatches. I won't be able to work on this again until later today. Wronkiew (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- There's no deadline (I won't slot it in to be run until it's finished); if you don't mind continuing to work on it over the next few days, I'd be grateful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the floating images should be turned into galleries, as was done in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-13/Dispatches. I won't be able to work on this again until later today. Wronkiew (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- The layout/organization at the bottom of the article still troubles me; any ideas? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Name of: Kent C Sesse
I am truly at a loss to comprehend precisely what your objection is. Plutonium27 (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- My objection was to the name Kent C. Snakeoil. Wronkiew (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah. Iffy punctuation. It should read "Kent C. (full stop) Snakeoil." I invariably put snakeoil as one word out of habit (science/med blogs) - which is wrong and I shouldn't and for any confusion I apologise. The full stop was meant to be exactly that - end of sentence, not signifier of middle name initial as I've observed that American names with middle initials rarely bother with it. My !vote to merge was agreed upon - as was the re-direct I was iffy about. But before steaming over to upbraid me and suggest that my contribution would have been taken less seriously as a consequence, it perhaps would have better if you had ascertained the meaning/intent with me first. I could have then corrected the ambiguity but the AfD had closed. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, no problem. I'm really not at all upset over this, I was just hoping you could rephrase your comment before the AfD closed or this happened. Wronkiew (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I didn't know that sensitive special-snowflake SPA would call the waaaambulance over getting called on their WP:OR/ILikeIt article. All the best. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- But I AM seriously pissed off to have discovered that User talk:TimVickers went and unilaterally blanked the AfD upon SPA's request. Not only could this be seen as prima facie overkill but he didn't even contact me to a) to see if there may have been a mistake or b) offer a retraction if I had "libelled" someone. Admin reacts because someone says its "law" ? wtf? Anyway, thanks for the heads-up message - I didn't know there was dramah and I unreservedly apologise to you for any suggestion you may have acted previous yourself: I see what you did there ;) All the best Plutonium27 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- I share your displeasure at Plutonium27's ill-considered choice of words. Indeed, I blanked the AfD not out of ungrounded concerns about libel, but from common courtesy. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I didn't know that sensitive special-snowflake SPA would call the waaaambulance over getting called on their WP:OR/ILikeIt article. All the best. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, no problem. I'm really not at all upset over this, I was just hoping you could rephrase your comment before the AfD closed or this happened. Wronkiew (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah. Iffy punctuation. It should read "Kent C. (full stop) Snakeoil." I invariably put snakeoil as one word out of habit (science/med blogs) - which is wrong and I shouldn't and for any confusion I apologise. The full stop was meant to be exactly that - end of sentence, not signifier of middle name initial as I've observed that American names with middle initials rarely bother with it. My !vote to merge was agreed upon - as was the re-direct I was iffy about. But before steaming over to upbraid me and suggest that my contribution would have been taken less seriously as a consequence, it perhaps would have better if you had ascertained the meaning/intent with me first. I could have then corrected the ambiguity but the AfD had closed. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Closing FPC nominations
Hey, I closed one promotion today, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cannon with gabions. Can you please see if its done ok? Thanks for closing the rest. Muhammad(talk) 09:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your help. The rate of FPC nominations seems to be increasing, and I'm having trouble keeping up with them all. For Cannon with gabions, I changed the image title you added to the announcement and goings on pages to match the title given on the nomination page. You still need to add the thumbnail to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History. On Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/War, you should change the author name to Agostino Ramelli, and avoid external links for the gallery captions. It looks like everything else was done perfectly. For the other noms, please don't close them out of order or before their 7 days is up, no matter how certain they are to fail. Thanks again! Wronkiew (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking. For the other noms I closed early, I remember MER-C had said some time ago on the FPC talk page that nominations with speedy close can be nuked within 48 (or was it 24) hrs if no contrary views are expressed. For the other one I closed, the FP says that nominations should be listed for about 7 days. 6.5 is about 7 days, right? Anuways, thanks --Muhammad(talk) 17:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, good point about speedy close. However, that's only appropriate for copyright violations and other serious flaws. I still think that for other nominations, waiting the full 7 days is best. There's very little cost to leaving it up a little longer, and plenty of downside if someone objects to the early close. Wronkiew (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking. For the other noms I closed early, I remember MER-C had said some time ago on the FPC talk page that nominations with speedy close can be nuked within 48 (or was it 24) hrs if no contrary views are expressed. For the other one I closed, the FP says that nominations should be listed for about 7 days. 6.5 is about 7 days, right? Anuways, thanks --Muhammad(talk) 17:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: Thumbs
No problems on either matter. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Noodle snacks closures
If you follow his talk page, you'll have noticed that I've complained about his closures before. Of course, with the attention you give to closures, you might very well have complained about it yourself. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)