| Revision as of 23:33, 16 June 2009 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Kotniski/Archive 3.← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:44, 17 June 2009 edit undoKirill Lokshin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users75,365 edits →Re: ArbCom dates case: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
| <small>Delivered by ] (]) at 11:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)</small> | <small>Delivered by ] (]) at 11:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)</small> | ||
| == Re: ArbCom dates case == | |||
| You have been sanctioned because we have determined that you ] 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 ]. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 05:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:44, 17 June 2009
| Talk page policy: I dislike seeing only one side of a discussion on a page. If I put a message on your talk page, I will be watching that page for a reply. If you leave a message here, I will reply here, unless you request otherwise. |
|---|
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
edit warring report
Polish IPA templates
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- OK, I'll do that.--Kotniski (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
WP:ANI
I made a complaint about your removal of the RfC in WP:Link talk. See also. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Will you behave, please? I need you in discussions on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)! Debresser (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Signpost: 15 June 2009
- Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
- News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
- Misplaced Pages in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: ArbCom dates case
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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. Kirill 05:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)