User talk:Kotniski: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Debresser and Kotniski reported by William Allen Simpson (Result: )

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

This is a near impossible request unless you can automate it. I've been working on straightening out our IPA transcriptions, including such details as using the IPA stress marks instead of apostrophes, etc. Polish, however, is a problem. First of all, AWB won't load all of the transclusions, because it has a limit of 25,000 retrievals per template. The auto-conversion is a really nice feature, but many of the IPA-pl examples contain regular IPA rather than orthography. Is there any way you could automate a split, with the regular IPA at IPA-pl, and the orthographic conversion at a new name, maybe something like "convertIPA-pl", "conIPA-pl", "cIPA-pl", "IPAcon-pl", "IPAc-pl"? (That's just a suggestion, following the perhaps temporary name {{convertIPA-hu}}.) That way I could get IPA-pl in line with all the other lang-specific IPA templates.

kwami (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the vast majority of the IPA-pl uses are in Polish village articles created by Kotbot. I hope to do another pass on these articles soon, to make various corrections, including converting the orthgraphic IPA-pl templates to {{IPAr}}. So in fact I will be doing what you ask, though I'm not sure exactly when - I'm going to be a bit short of time and fast net access over the next few weeks.--Kotniski (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no rush. If you drop me a line to remind me when you're done, I'll see what I can do with those that remain at IPA-pl. As long as there aren't still 30k+ of them! kwami (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do that.--Kotniski (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a complaint about your removal of the RfC in WP:Link talk. See also. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you behave, please? I need you in discussions on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)! Debresser (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been sanctioned because we have determined that you edit-warred on style guidelines in furtherance of this dispute; your participation on these pages has therefore been temporarily restricted in order to ensure that the guidelines in question can reach a stable state with a minimum of further conflict.

As far as having a restriction overturned, you may request amendment of the case as outlined at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]